Oral Answers to Questions

EDUCATION

The Secretary of State was asked—

Higher Education

Peter Pike: What progress has been made in areas of traditionally low higher education take-up in improving that position over the last six years.

Brian Iddon: What proportion of students entered higher education from social classes D and E in autumn (a) 2002 and (b) 1997.

Charles Clarke: The proportion of young people from low-skill families entering higher education is about the same now as it was in 1997—18 per cent. for social class D, and 15 per cent. for social class E—which is why we have introduced the aimhigher campaign. The gap between progression rates into higher education from aimhigher areas and the rest is closing. Latest figures from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service suggest that this trend is likely to continue. Applications for 2003 university entry are up 2.6 per cent. in aimhigher areas, compared with 0.3 per cent. elsewhere.

Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that in Burnley there is a low take-up of higher education. The town's future prosperity depends on more people going on to higher education and, when they have done so, returning to work in suitable employment in the area. Will the Government continue to do all that they can to encourage more people to take up higher education and monitor that to see exactly how they are succeeding? That is important to the future of education, not only in Burnley, but in many other places.

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is correct. When I visited Burnley recently, I discussed with him and colleagues the way in which we could address those questions. I pay tribute to the work that he and his friends and colleagues are doing to raise education standards throughout the town, as that is the way forward, provided that we can get the link between universities, nationally and regionally, and Burnley to encourage people to believe that a university education is a realistic proposition.

Brian Iddon: Bolton institute in my constituency tops the league on access to higher education, with 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of its students coming from the very backgrounds that we are discussing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a cost both for attaining and maintaining that position? Furthermore, there is an added cost for keeping those students in higher education, given their higher than average social and financial problems, to prevent them from dropping out.

Charles Clarke: I pay tribute to the work of Bolton institute. There is a welcome for many of our proposals in the White Paper on the importance of recognising the work of such organisations. My hon. Friend is right that there are additional cost factors, which are already reflected to some extent in the Higher Education Funding Council funding streams, but that is one of the matters that we need to return to and examine carefully.

David Ruffley: The Secretary of State will be aware that in the 25 weakest universities there is an average drop-out rate of one in four. Those students are not getting any qualifications at all, despite having started a course. In light of that rather depressing fact, will the right hon. Gentleman consider dropping his wholly unrealistic target of getting 50 per cent. of all 18-year-olds into higher education?

Charles Clarke: With respect, we had a full debate on the matter yesterday, instigated by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Conservative Front Bench. Not many Conservative Members were present, and I know that he could not be there. One of the issues that we discussed was the fact that the drop-out rate has remained roughly constant since 1997. However, we are committed to a 50 per cent. participation rate because we believe that the future economic and social strength of this country is dependent on a highly educated, highly trained population, and that is what we need to achieve.

Phil Willis: Does the Secretary of State maintain the position that he took on 9 January, when he said that
	"the difference between the chances of access to higher education of the higher and lower social classes is a public disgrace."—[Official Report, 9 January 2003; Vol. 397, c. 300.]
	We share that view, but could he explain to the House how, by charging the poorest students in the land top-up fees from 2005–06, he will encourage those students into higher education? On the target of 50 per cent. of students being in higher education by 2010, will he include in that overall target a specific target for young people from lower socio-economic groups?

Charles Clarke: I have had correspondence on this matter with the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who made a number of mistakes in a letter that he wrote publicly. I had to correct them, but unfortunately the right hon. Gentleman has still not replied. However, in the White Paper—we will legislate on the basis of its proposals, which were debated fully in the Opposition day debate earlier this week in which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) spoke—we addressed the matter very fully indeed. Those proposals will increase access rather than reduce it.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Does my right hon. Friend agree that economic prosperity, social well-being and quality of life are vastly enhanced for people who study to a higher level? For people in my constituency, the two great determinants of getting into higher education are aspirations at the age of 11 and access to further education through FE colleges. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that in the response to the White Paper, those two points are given great prominence? Although debt is an issue, will he take it from me, as the first person in my family to go into higher education, that aspiration at the age of 11 is the single most important factor?

Charles Clarke: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. She puts her point extremely clearly and I can give her the assurances that she seeks. A proposal to scrap fees completely, as has been suggested by the Opposition, would lead to a situation where about 50 people in every sixth form in the country would not be able to go on to higher education, so in my hon. Friend's schools in Rochdale, if the Opposition came into government, the opportunity and the aspiration would be removed.

Graham Brady: On Monday the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education rightly said that the surest way to widen participation was to improve results in schools. The Department's own figures show that in areas with grammar schools, 32.1 per cent. of children achieve A or B grades at GCSE, compared with 23.1 per cent. in comprehensive areas. Is not the Secretary of State worried that by attacking the remaining grammar schools, the Government will take opportunities away from the brightest children from ordinary families and thereby make participation worse, not better?

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman's presumption is wrong. We are not attacking particular groups of schools and will not do so. The issue of education standards should be carefully examined when considering the best system of education in any locality. Is the hon. Gentleman saying, on behalf of his party, that the Conservatives would bring back the 11-plus in every part of the country? Is that what he believes should happen? When will they publicise it? Will they have the confidence to put that policy to the country?

Adrian Bailey: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about the aimhigher campaign. I recently had the privilege of sitting in on the aimhigher roadshow at Stuart Bathurst school in my constituency and found it extremely impressive. Can he assure me that that way of communicating to schools will be rolled out throughout the country to all schools with the clientele that would benefit from it?

Charles Clarke: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. There has been a great deal of positive experience from the aimhigher programme in various parts of the country. When respected community leaders such as my hon. Friend give it their personal endorsement, that adds to the effectiveness of the programme. I congratulate him on doing that and hope that other colleagues in all parts of the House would consider doing so too.

Education Funding

Cheryl Gillan: What recent discussions he has had with local education authorities in the south of England about funding of schools; and if he will make a statement.

David Miliband: Both my right hon. Friend and I have had meetings with a number of representatives from local education authorities in southern England. Officials have held meetings with LEAs to help them if they face difficulties.

Cheryl Gillan: No matter how many meetings the Minister has, nothing can disguise the crisis facing our schools, particularly in Buckinghamshire, where between 50 and 60 schools will be running deficit budgets this year. With teachers' pension contributions, the withdrawal of many standards fund grants, the impact of the work force agreement and national insurance increases, the costs are outstripping income. The Government are wrecking the education system and demoralising head teachers, governors, parents and pupils. Instead of Ministers behaving like political sheep and bleating out the mantra that there is more money in all our systems, why do they not take some real action and save our schools?

David Miliband: The House will be interested to know that the Government have taken £80 million of real action by adding that to the Buckinghamshire total for education spending over the past six years. The hon. Lady can talk as much as she likes about costs in the system. When there are more teachers who are better paid and better supported, we on the Labour Benches are relieved that we have a Government who are willing to invest and cover those costs, rather than cut them, as her party would do.

Jim Knight: As my hon. Friend knows from correspondence that I have had with him, the current funding settlement has caused significant problems in Dorset schools, but that is set against an increase of 63 per cent. in schools funding in Dorset in the past six years and significant gains in school buildings in rural and urban areas in my constituency. Head teachers in my constituency are asking when there will be some predictability about levels of funding. What is my hon. Friend doing to help head teachers plan their staffing in the future and the level of education for our children?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend has been a doughty champion of schools in his constituency. He has made representations in a serious and committed way, and the point that he makes about the need for long-term predictability and stability is absolutely right. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on 15 May, we sought a three-year pay settlement in our submission to the School Teachers Review Body last year. We did not get that, but we are determined to come back to this House and the country and give predictability for the next two years and a funding system on which head teachers can rely.

Julian Brazier: Does the Minister really think it is fair that the recent funding settlement has provided an above-average increase for the constituencies of every member of the Cabinet, but in Kent, we have seen a 3.6 per cent. increase for education when costs are rising by 7.8 per cent.? This year, Kent has balanced the books by slashing overheads and introducing a big rise in council tax. In the next two years, we will see huge, swathing cuts in our schools. Does he think that that is fair?

David Miliband: The commitment of the Government has to be that similar pupils in different parts of the country have the same amount of money attached to them. That applies in Kent as it does elsewhere, as we have made clear. The hon. Gentleman will know that an extra £650 per pupil is being spent in Kent in comparison with six years ago. The assurance that I give him—this is a serious point—is that, for the next two years, the final two years of the spending review, we need to come back to the head teachers and the House to secure the predictability and stability that he wants. That is our commitment.

Higher Education

Paul Farrelly: When he proposes to announce his response to the consultation on the White Paper on higher education.

Alan Johnson: We have received a large number of comments on the Government's higher education proposals. We shall publish a summary of these shortly.

Paul Farrelly: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. We will certainly look forward to seeing the response in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Given that consultation on the White Paper ended on 30 April, which is some time ago, and as the Government's response in this week's debates was tantamount to a restatement of the whole document, what are the prospects of any changes in policy to meet the concerns that have been expressed?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend was a very important contributor to one of those debates. Of course, we were debating one party's policy to contract higher education and reduce opportunities for youngsters from working-class backgrounds to enter university, and the policy of another party that agrees that extra funding is needed, but denies that there should be any contribution whatever from graduates.
	We had a huge number of replies in the consultation. We received 800 replies from interested parties and a further 1,000 responses as we went around the country speaking to principals in higher education and others. We will consider those responses very carefully. We will then publish our result and, as always, listen to what hon. Members in all parts of the House, but particularly on the Labour Benches, have to say about the issue.

Tim Boswell: Given that the Secretary of State has just admitted that the Government, for all their rhetoric, have not to date made any advances in terms of the participation of disadvantaged students, which does the Minister think will have the greater effect on such participation—the aimhigher scheme or the imposition of top-up fees?

Alan Johnson: Let me say to my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I am sorry, it is the Johnson and Boswell thing, I am afraid. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that there has been no change in this regard for 40 years. When the Robbins report was produced in 1962, it decided that moving to a system of grant-maintained higher education would narrow the gap. It did not do so, and neither, incidentally—this is an important point for the Conservative party—did the introduction of tuition fees do anything to worsen that gap. The gap has stayed stubbornly and obscenely in place over the past 40 years. How do we address that?
	I should correct a mistake that I made in yesterday's debate, when I said that the Office for Fair Access would not deal with access. Of course, what I meant was that OFFA will have nothing to do with admissions, which will be for the universities. OFFA will look at access and look to ensure that we redouble our efforts through programmes such as outreach and other programmes that hon. Members have mentioned are taking place in their constituencies in order to encourage aspiration and then attainment among youngsters. The way of not assisting the situation would be to withdraw £193 million of funds that now go specifically to resolving this problem, which is what the Opposition wish to do.

Louise Ellman: What observations has my hon. Friend received on the 50 per cent. target that the Government have set for those reaching higher education? Does he envisage an increasingly diverse higher and further education sector in which the acquisition of skills is seen to be as important as academic qualifications?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That issue is a central part of our White Paper. There are two aspects to it. First, the response to the consultation, both from the sector itself and from the business community, has been very positive in respect of people in higher education. The business community recognises that if we are to keep pace with our competitors, eight out of 10 of the 1.7 million jobs that are to be created over the next decade will require graduates to fill them.
	Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said on countless occasions, the growth will come mainly from two-year foundation degrees that are vocational. We must expand that area to ensure that we not only meet the needs of this country, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) said, give people a life-enhancing experience.

Education Funding

Michael Jack: What assessment he has made of the use by schools of their reserves to meet funding shortages.

Charles Clarke: We do not yet know to what extent balances will be used by schools in this financial year, 2003–04, because in many cases local education authorities are still considering schools' budget plans.

Michael Jack: In the course of the Secretary of State's inquiries, I invite him to consider Freckleton Church of England school in my constituency, which has already used the school's piggy bank to try to stay in business, but is £49,000 short. It is, in effect, sacking two members of staff, and is having to introduce mixed ability teaching simply to keep its head above water. There is a real problem in Lancashire, and Freckleton is but one of a number of schools that are suffering. Notwithstanding the extra money that Lancashire has received, might I ask the Secretary of State to look closely at the problems in Lancashire, especially on the Fylde coast?

Charles Clarke: I do not know the particular circumstances of Freckleton school, or whether falling rolls have been an issue there, but I can say that our information about school balances in Lancashire shows that the situation is very straightforward. At 31 March 2002, the end of the previous year, those balances totalled £40.876 million, which at 9.8 per cent. of budget share is above the national average. In the previous year ending March 2001, the total school balances in Lancashire had been only £33.663 million. We do not yet know the figure for the end of March 2003, but we understand that the latest estimates are that those balances will be greater than the £41 million that I mentioned. Schools in Lancashire have significant balances that are above the national average, so a serious resource is available.

Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although we have a Government who have piled a fantastic amount of investment into schools, the turbulence that has occurred this year has given many schools a pretty hard time? Does he accept that it is not good enough simply to blame local authorities, given that yesterday the permanent secretary told the Select Committee on Education and Skills that only 11 local authorities were guilty of not passporting money through to schools?

Charles Clarke: The fact is that the funding of schools is a shared responsibility between national Government and local government. The turbulence, to use my hon. Friend's word, was caused by some decisions in national Government, as I have acknowledged in this House on many occasions. Local education authorities take decisions of various kinds—how much to distribute to individual schools, how much is operated centrally, and so on. I believe that both the national Government and local authorities should take responsibility for the effects of those decisions on the funding of individual schools.
	As for passporting, my hon. Friend's figures are entirely correct. I am glad that the Select Committee is considering these matters, and I am to give evidence to it shortly. In relation to those 11 authorities that did not passport the money, there is a fairly high correlation between the areas with the biggest reported problems and the LEAs that did not passport the money.

Andrew Turner: Does the Secretary of State know that the permanent secretary also told the Select Committee yesterday that there was inadequate time between making the decisions and the beginning of the financial year for the Department to model the effect on schools or for local education authorities to change their funding formulae? That inadequacy, which has been recognised in normal years, was worsened by the extent of the turbulence. Did the Secretary of State's officials warn him that the time was simply too short?

Charles Clarke: The permanent secretary was right and the hon. Gentleman, in citing him, is therefore also right that there was an issue about timing. Modelling is interesting because local authorities' real decisions, for example, in setting council tax, must be taken into account. We have debated the issues fully and we shall ensure that the problems do not recur next year.

David Chaytor: The budgets of schools in my constituency were screwed into the ground for the 12 years of the old unfair funding system. Schools in my constituency and many other poorer metropolitan districts in the north of England welcome this year's overall settlement. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the manufactured crisis that some local authorities have generated is not allowed to derail the new funding system and turn the clock back to the previous system?

Charles Clarke: I have two things to say. Despite my hon. Friend's support, which I appreciate, I do not associate myself with his language in his description of a "manufactured crisis." There is no doubt that a genuine problem had to be tackled in many schools. However, I can assure him that the fundamental formula for distributing resources throughout the country was established for three years and will remain on the basis that he described.

Damian Green: Has the Secretary of State seen today's survey of local education authorities? It shows that, on top of schools using reserves to cover funding shortages, 67 per cent. of the LEAs that were surveyed report redundancies among teachers or teaching assistants. Will he take the opportunity to admit that when the Prime Minister said yesterday that only a small number of teachers were being made redundant, he was simply wrong?

Charles Clarke: The Prime Minister was not wrong. I have not studied the analysis that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but The Times Educational Supplement last week advertised more than 1,000 vacancies for teachers. As the Prime Minister said the other day, this year's overall number of teacher redundancies, which are due to a variety of reasons, including falling rolls and the financial issues to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is broadly comparable to that of previous years. We have said that all along.

Damian Green: The redundancies are only the most vivid problem. In the same survey, Labour-controlled Croydon reports more than 100 posts unfilled because of financial pressures. Leeds reports 78 fewer teaching staff than last year, and in Leicestershire, 63 schools have been forced to set deficit budgets. Does the Secretary of State understand why The Guardian yesterday published a poll, which was headed:
	"Voters losing faith in Labour on education"?
	Will he give schools that are going into deficit a guarantee that next year they will be given enough to get out of deficit and back to normal staffing levels?

Charles Clarke: I acknowledge that teacher redundancies are only part of the problems and constraints that individual schools have had to tackle. We have said that throughout the process. I also acknowledge that the various reasons for the position have caused genuine problems such as the hon. Gentleman describes in schools. However, he should be honest enough to acknowledge that, under this Government, a further 25,000 teachers and 80,000 classroom assistants have been employed and there has been a vast amount of investment in schools' capital. He should have the grace to acknowledge that, as I acknowledge the strength of one or two of his points. The Government's education record has been outstanding.

Barry Gardiner: May I thank my right hon. Friend for Brent's settlement this year and for the way in which the schools have been able to manage it? However, I draw to his attention Claremont school, which has had to go into reserves to balance its books this year. Will he congratulate Brent education authority on the additional contribution, above the 100 per cent. passporting, that it made to ensure that schools throughout the borough can maintain their staffing levels and survive this year? Will he also examine the inner and outer London education authority hangover in the problem of teacher pay with which boroughs such as Brent must cope?

Charles Clarke: First, I acknowledge the inner-outer London issue that my hon. Friend raises. I am sure that that is one of the matters that the review body will consider for future years. Secondly, I give credit to Brent and the many other local education authorities that have put money above the 100 per cent. passporting into education in their areas. Thirdly, on reserves and balances, there is an issue about what they are for. They are not simply to be kept stored in a bank account; they are there to get real things and good quality education. It is quite reasonable for reserves and balances to be held at a reasonable level, but above that, it is reasonable to use the resources to improve the quality of education.

David Heath: Setting aside the £1,500 per child per year difference that still exists between Somerset and leafy London boroughs, may I ask the Secretary of State to look at some of the schools in my constituency—such as Bruton primary school, which I visited last week—which are facing real problems because their reserves have already been factored in for dealing with changes in rolls, yet they still face teacher redundancies? The Somerset education authority has written to him seeking a meeting, but he has written back saying that his diary is too full. Will he please reconsider that and meet the representatives of Somerset to discuss this very important issue?

Charles Clarke: On the hon. Gentleman's final point, I am happy to meet Members of the House from all parties with delegations to discuss these and other issues. If he cares to write to me, I will certainly look at doing that. My hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has had a wide range of meetings in precisely that way. As I have said throughout this discussion, particular schools have particular issues, which are real and need to be addressed. We will continue to help local authorities to help them to do that.

Colchester Sixth Form College

Bob Russell: If he will visit the Colchester sixth form college to discuss funding for the college.

Ivan Lewis: Sadly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not be able to accept the hon. Gentleman's kind invitation. However, the hon. Gentleman should not despair, because my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education hopes to be able to visit the college in the autumn and would welcome the opportunity to discuss the increase in funding for further education over the next three years and the college's development plan for that period.

Bob Russell: I warmly welcome that response. When the Minister visits the college, will he explain why a sixth form college that puts in a new building gets only a 30 per cent. building grant, while sixth forms in a school get a 100 per cent. grant? Also, why is it that, in the seventh year of a Labour Government, students who attend one of the 100 or so sixth form colleges across the country receive, on average, 25 per cent. less funding than sixth form students in schools? Why is there such an unlevel playing field between students at sixth form colleges and those who attend sixth form in a school?

Ivan Lewis: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to thank me for the £370,000 grant recently awarded to the college to help build its new information technology and education block, or for the 19 per cent. real-terms increase in funding for the college sector over the next three years, or for the 7 per cent. real-terms increase in funding for full-time equivalent students over the same period. Where was the hon. Gentleman when we have spoken in the House, as we have done frequently, about the most ambitious investment and reform package for further education for a generation, which has the clear objective of closing the funding gap between 16 to 19-year-olds educated in schools and those educated in college settings? As to the question of VAT, that is a matter that Customs and Excise is currently considering.

Pupil Testing

Ann Winterton: What plans he has to extend testing of school children throughout England to those aged 14.

Charles Clarke: None.

Ann Winterton: I sense something of a U-turn here, because there have been authoritative reports in the newspapers that such testing might be introduced. Will the Secretary of State give the House an unequivocal assurance that the Government have no plans to scrap GCSEs or to have examinations for 14-year-olds? Will he say that clearly today, because such plans would adversely affect pupils and would not guarantee an improvement in the quality of learning in schools?

Charles Clarke: The report in The Times to which the hon. Lady refers was, in fact, completely incorrect, which is why I answered "None" just now. For her information, there are examinations at the age of 14. They are called key stage 3 examinations, and they will continue. We have no plans to scrap GCSEs, but we do have plans carefully to consider the report of a commission chaired by Mike Tomlinson on the whole of 14-to-19 education, and to come to a series of views about where we should go. Mr. Tomlinson's committee will be producing initial thoughts later this year, and a final report at the turn of next year which everyone can consider and discuss in those circumstances.

Specialist Schools

Julia Drown: What criteria he uses to assess applications for re-designations of schools as specialist schools.

David Miliband: Specialist schools applying for re-designation are assessed against rigorous criteria. These consist of: first, progress in relation to the objectives of the programme and the targets set by the school; secondly, improvement in academic performance both in specialist subjects and across the whole school; thirdly, the quality of the specialist school development plans for the next four years.

Julia Drown: Will my hon. Friend consider widening the assessment criteria to take into account educational and wider community benefits? Churchfields school in my constituency partly serves one of the most deprived areas in the south-west and was widely welcomed as a specialist school. The school has turned itself around and come out of special measures. It has achieved a 50 per cent. increase in academic standards and one need only look at the performing arts to see the huge talent that it is developing, yet it has been told that it cannot continue as a specialist school.
	Surely schools that are obviously benefiting from specialist school status—so widely welcomed in the community—should not have that status taken away. Will the Minister look again at the criteria to make sure that schools such as this can continue the success that they have so obviously developed from being specialist schools?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend has spoken and written to me about the case of Churchfields school. I can assure the House that I do not decide; an independent panel looks carefully at every case and makes recommendations about re-designation. My hon. Friend will agree that the re-designation process has to be fair and objective. I know that Churchfields has appealed against the decision of the independent panel. The appeal will be considered in the new academic year to take account of its results this year. I look forward to the school making significant progress during that time.

David Cameron: Will the Minister recognise the sense of disappointment often felt by heads, teachers, governors and parents when a school's application for specialist status is rejected? Will he look again at the application by Carterton community college in my constituency, a school without a sixth form which serves the local population around RAF Brize Norton and has a transient population? The headmaster is doing an excellent job in terms of discipline and results. The school applied for specialist status and was very disappointed not to get it. I hope that he will be able to look at the case again.

David Miliband: I can do better than the hon. Gentleman hopes, in the following sense: our commitment is to work with the schools to help prepare them for specialist status so that they are in a position to make the most of it. I cannot revisit the decision to reject the application, but I am committed to working with the school to make sure that the application next time is of a sufficient standard to get through.

Jonathan R Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that schools are far less likely to be rejected under this Government's specialist schools policy than under the previous Government, because we are putting in the money? When considering the specialist schools round, will he look carefully at Aylesford school in my constituency, which will share £60 million of private finance initiative new buildings, including a school in Ashford, about which I am sure the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) will be pleased? Will he look carefully at this school? The buildings are dilapidated, the staff are working very hard, the results are improving and it deserves to get the green light.

David Miliband: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for getting me back on message. When we came to office, there were only 100 specialist schools. There are now 900 and we predict that that will rise to about 2,000 by 2006. He will agree that they are making a substantial contribution to the rising standards across the country. I will look seriously at individual cases as they come through, but every judgment is made on an objective and independent basis.

Vincent Cable: What steps is the Minister taking to reduce the bureaucracy and red tape surrounding specialist school applications? One of my local schools, Hampton community college, which is desperately short of staff—especially senior staff—had to set aside three of its five most senior teachers for a term to make a bid that subsequently failed.

David Miliband: That is an important and good point and I can provide some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman. The 250-page form is being reduced to a 50-page form in the new round, making a significant difference to the bureaucracy associated with the application for specialist status.

Teachers' Pay

Joan Humble: What the increase in average pay for teachers has been since 1997.

David Miliband: The average salary for full-time regular teachers in the maintained schools sector in England and Wales rose from £22,900 in March 1997 to £27,200 in March 2001, the last year for which information is available. This represents an increase of 18.7 per cent. in cash terms, and 7 per cent. in real terms.

Joan Humble: I thank the Minister for that announcement. He will undoubtedly agree that that welcome increase has contributed to the large rise in the number of teachers—an extra 25,000 or so since 1997. But will he reassure me that he will examine the work load agreement with teachers and use it, together with increased salaries, to help to recruit, and above all to retain, teachers?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend makes a really important point. The Government said in their evidence to the School Teachers Review Body last year that outside London, teacher salaries were in our view competitive. Indeed, current recruitment rates bear that out: there are 4,000 more teachers this year than last year. The top priority for teachers in terms of recruitment and retention is work load, and the work load agreement that we have introduced—in conjunction with support staff unions, head teacher unions and the majority of teaching unions—represents a first and historic attempt genuinely to change teachers' working conditions over the next three years. I believe that that will happen, and that the agreement will have the impact on retention that my hon. Friend hopes for.

Michael Fabricant: Does the Minister realise that although the school achievement awards seem a good idea per se in order to reward teachers for good service and for having special skills, they create real difficulties for head teachers in meeting their budgets? In Staffordshire, which passes on 106 per cent. of the amount allocated to education by the Government, schools are having real difficulty in providing a fair and equitable distribution of awards to teachers. What steps can this Minister take to ensure that schools not only in Staffordshire but in other parts of England and Wales are not pressured in such a way that they are unable to pass on these awards?

David Miliband: If I understood the hon. Gentleman's question correctly, there are two parts to it. First, he will be reassured to know that school achievement awards are funded centrally, so there is no question of the money coming out of schools' budgets. Secondly, there is clear guidance on how the money should be allocated between staff, and he is of course right to point out that it is for the whole school team, not just for teachers.

Student Debt

Simon Thomas: What estimate he has made of the average debt of students leaving higher education in (a) Wales and (b) England in the last three years.

Alan Johnson: My Department's last survey of student income and expenditure covered the academic year 1998–99. Results from the 2002–03 survey, including estimates of the debt of students in England and Wales who graduate in summer 2003, will be available later this year. According to the UNITE/MORI student living reports, the average debt anticipated by students at UK universities was £7,026 in 2000–01, £8,133 in 2001–02, and £8,816 in 2002–03. They did not give comparative figures for England and Wales, however.

Simon Thomas: I thank the Minister for that useful reply. Has he had an opportunity to read the report published yesterday by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which examined the White Paper's models on top-up fees and student debt? At a conservative estimate, graduates will be burdened with debt for 10 years as a result of the White Paper's proposals. What can the Minister say today about the rising debt burden on students, and about the indisputable fact that that will not help access to higher education for those from poorer backgrounds?

Alan Johnson: I have had a chance to read the headline figures: that same report said that the Conservatives' policy would be to take money from the poor and give it to the rich. Debt is a very important issue. On the White Paper's proposals, it has been said that we are adding another £9,000 to student debt by increasing the current level from £12,000—three student loans of £4,000—to £21,000. However, in terms of the poorest students—the main topic of the question—one must take account of the fact that we will be introducing a £1,000 non-repayable maintenance grant. So provided that a student takes that grant instead of £1,000 worth of loan, the overall figure will be reduced by £3,000. We will also be providing fee remission of up to £1,100 on the same basis as applies to tuition fees, so a further £3,300 can be deducted from the overall figure. So we are comparing £12,000 with £14,700. As to the time it takes to repay—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister should write to the hon. Member.

Anne Campbell: Is it not true that the Government have introduced income-contingent loans rather than mortgage-style loans, which led to an enormous burden, particularly for women? The problem with mortgage-style loans was that, once someone had started to pay back the student loan, payments had to continue at the same rate no matter what the student's earnings, even if there were no earnings at all. Is not income-contingent repayment a much more sensible and fairer way of paying back?

Alan Johnson: I apologise for getting bogged down in figures earlier, Mr. Speaker.
	My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are suggesting a progressive policy. The old system, which still applies to some students paying back their debt, meant that once someone paid a penny over a certain threshold, the whole lot had to be paid back—divided by five or by seven. A woman on maternity leave, for example, would build up more debt. Our proposals are much fairer: unless someone reaches the threshold of £15,000, no money is paid back whatever. Dipping below it in the future will not mean building up debt, because no real rate of interest is attached. Our proposals are therefore much better. Chris Patten, the former chairman of the party, described Conservative proposals as "the worst sort—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Henry Bellingham: The Minister has given two very long answers, and you have rightly called him to order, Mr. Speaker. However, I have a very simple question for him. Is there any evidence that students from poorer backgrounds are put off going to university because of the fear of building up debt?

Alan Johnson: There is obviously a question about debt, as the White Paper clearly states. It is, of course, an issue, but we also say that the main problem of getting youngsters into higher education revolves around the question of aspiration, attainment, application and then admission. [Interruption.] It is not just about whether there is debt or no debt. Debt existed under the previous Government's policies; there has always been student debt. The question is how best to deal with it and ensure that it is not too much of a burden on future aspirations.

School Funding

Mark Hoban: If he will make a statement on school funding in 2003–04.

David Miliband: We have invested a record £2.7 billion more in education funding this year, and we have introduced a new funding system which is widely recognised as being fairer than the old one. However, as we have discussed today and on many other occasions, some schools have faced difficulties this year. We are committed to ensuring that every school receives a reasonable per pupil increase for next year and the year after that.

Mark Hoban: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. However, despite Hampshire county council exceeding the Government's passporting targets, schools in my constituency have to balance the books this year, and if they are to avoid making redundancies, they have to use their reserves. If schools in Fareham do not receive a fair deal for the funding that they need, redundancies will hit next year rather than this.

David Miliband: I take seriously the views of the head teachers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, who are writing to explain the position. However, if he is interested in a fair deal, he should try to persuade his Front Benchers to support the current levels of spending—we have not yet heard whether they do. Until he persuades them, we cannot take him seriously.

Brian Jenkins: I am someone who is interested in a fair deal, so will the Minister remind us and explain to the House again why a school in a deprived area in a county such as Hertfordshire should receive more Government funding than a school in Tamworth with the same level of deprivation, facing the same cost profile? Will he tell us?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend raises an important point. He will be reassured to know that the pupils in the two schools to which he referred receive the same amount of money from the Government. The difference is in how the local education authority in each case decides to spend that money.

Phil Willis: Not true.

David Miliband: The Government provide the same money per pupil across the country where the circumstances of the pupil are the same. The local education authority then has a choice about whether to fund similar pupils in the same way at school level. That is a choice that local authorities have to make.

Angela Watkinson: What would the Minister say to the London borough of Havering, which received an increase of only 3.5 per cent. in its central Government grant this year? It has passported well in excess of 100 per cent. of its education grant to its schools, yet the very small grant that it received means that schools are still suffering extreme financial hardship as they try to balance their budgets. No matter how much the authority passports to schools, it is still not enough.

David Miliband: The hon. Lady will know that the amount of money available for distribution to schools depends partly on how much money comes from central Government and partly on how much is raised locally. The distribution to individual schools depends on the number of pupils in each school. I do not know whether the schools to which she refers are losing pupils, but that is a significant problem in a number of primary schools. There are 50,000 fewer primary school pupils this year than there were last year. I am afraid that there will be 50,000 fewer again next year, and another 50,000 fewer the year after that. That is a problem across the country, and we have to take it seriously.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Crown Prosecution Service

David Kidney: What plans she has to train more Crown Prosecution Service staff to become qualified lawyers.

Harriet Harman: This week, the CPS law scholarship programme was launched. This will give full financial sponsorship to CPS administrative and clerical staff to qualify as lawyers. The importance of the scheme is that it will extend opportunities, broaden the legal profession and give the CPS a supply of home-grown lawyers.

David Kidney: My right hon. and learned Friend deserves much credit for the law scholarship scheme, whose launch I attended with her on Tuesday. I congratulate her on that achievement. I am pleased for the CPS staff who will benefit from the self-improvement that the scheme offers, but does she agree that the real praise should go to the CPS for taking up the scheme? It represents the most efficient use of resources and it is bound to help with recruitment and retention in the years to come.

Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I shall pass on his warm words of welcome to where they belong—that is, to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the human resource team in the CPS and the chief Crown prosecutors. The previous discussion in the House was about improving access to education and training, but the point of the programme is that it can be very expensive to qualify as a lawyer. The fees alone can amount to £13,500. It also costs a lot—up to £20,000—for the CPS to recruit a lawyer. Instead of spending money recruiting lawyers from outside, the aim is to recruit administrative and clerical people who have ability, commitment and intelligence but who have never had the opportunity. The scheme will also strengthen the legal profession, which will be more diverse and therefore have more legitimacy.

Nick Hawkins: I welcome what the Solicitor-General has said about currently employed CPS staff training as lawyers. However, will she ensure that during training they are also given specific and detailed guidance on the use of expert witnesses? That is especially important in light of the answer given yesterday in another place by the Attorney-General in connection with the tragic cases of Sally Clarke and Trupti Patel. Does she agree that it is crucial that all parts of the CPS are very careful in the use of expert witnesses, especially in tragic cases such as that?

Harriet Harman: Indeed, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, and I shall go further. He has asked before about matters arising from the Sally Clarke case, and I undertook to tell the House, after the Court of Appeal's written judgment was handed down, about the action that the CPS intended to take. In relation to current and existing cases involving either Dr. Williams or Professor Meadows as expert witnesses, guidance has been issued to the CPS about full disclosure of the Court of Appeal judgment on the defence. There will also be scrutiny and review of past cases in which convictions may have been secured on the evidence of Dr. Williams, to ensure that lessons are learned. I remind the House that, although serious issues were involved, neither the Court of Appeal in the Sally Clarke case nor the court of first instance in the Trupti Patel case made any criticism of the CPS.

Andy Reed: While it is important to improve the quality and training of CPS staff, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is necessary that they make the right decisions? In Leicestershire and in my constituency of Loughborough in particular, a number of cases against local drug dealers have been lost. Everybody on the estate knew who they were, the police put enormous cases together and we were all confident that we could get a prosecution, but the local CPS plea-bargained and got those people off with only a light fine.
	It is necessary to improve the quality of the service that is provided. Will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that that will be done to ensure that local people benefit from decent prosecution and that people who deserve to be put away are put away?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend's question raises a number of important points, which are being addressed by the CPS. The CPS needs to work closely with the police and to focus on the effect of its decisions on victims and witnesses. That is certainly happening. I remind the House, however, that the CPS must be sure that there is enough evidence, that the jury or the magistrates are more likely than not to convict, and that prosecution is in the public interest. That is the basis on which the CPS reviews cases.
	I take the points made by my hon. Friend. It might be a good idea for him to raise them in discussion with the chief Crown prosecutor in his area, who would, I am sure, look forward to working with him.

Environmental Offences

David Heath: How many successful prosecutions there were in respect of environmental offences during 2002.

Harriet Harman: There were 795 prosecutions by the Environment Agency in 2002, resulting in fines totalling £3.6 million. There are 50 Environment Agency prosecutors working across eight regions; they work with other agencies, such as the Health and Safety Executive and English Nature.

David Heath: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General. Will she pass on my thanks to the Home Secretary for making good his assurance to the House that he would amend the Criminal Justice Bill to provide better regulation of the trade in endangered species?
	Does the right hon. and learned Lady agree that many environmental laws are difficult to prosecute under owing to difficulties of definition, difficulties in the sentencing and arresting procedure, or difficulties of distinguishing between corporate and individual offenders? Is it not time for a review of environmental law, perhaps in one of the many legislative vehicles that come from the Home Office or the Department for Constitutional Affairs?

Harriet Harman: I will pass on the hon. Gentleman's thanks to the Home Secretary. I think that he is referring to the amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill to increase the penalty for endangered species trade offences. That would make those offences arrestable, which deals with one of the issues that he raised.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke of the difficulty of prosecuting environmental offences. We should be clear about the fact that not only do such offences cause people costs, they can also endanger health through water pollution, fly tipping and the like.
	There are problems of definition, especially the definition of waste. There are also problems in courts taking such offences seriously, with the right level of sentencing. However, as the hon. Gentleman may know, the theme of the Magistrates Association conference last year was sentencing for environmental offences. The criminal justice system and people in general are waking up to these problems. People must stop committing environmental offences and we are on the case. I work closely with the Environment Agency prosecutors.

Keith Vaz: In welcoming the work of the CPS on these matters, will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that, when cases are not seen through to prosecution, the complainants and witnesses who support the prosecution are told that it is not going ahead and are given the reasons, so that members of the public who try to co-operate with the prosecuting agencies and help them are kept informed of what is going on?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend raises an important point. There is nothing worse for a victim than to learn only when they open their local newspaper that the case against the person who had committed an offence against them has been dropped. They may not even read it in the paper, but hear of it from a neighbour or someone living in the area. The CPS is addressing that, with a new programme of direct communication with victims and witnesses. When charges are dropped or downgraded, the CPS lawyer responsible will write to the victim to tell them. That initiative is long overdue, but we should do more and build on the direct communication programme to ensure that victims who support prosecutions, in the public interest, are properly looked after by the criminal justice system.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister accept that the abuse of public places by those who get rid of their chewing gum on pavements, pedestrian areas and market squares is an environmental offence? How many successful prosecutions are brought against those people, who despoil public places to the great inconvenience of so many members of the public? This is a real issue; what can be done about it?

Harriet Harman: I do not know whether what the hon. Gentleman is referring to really comes within the definition of environmental offences or whether it would better suit antisocial behaviour legislation, but I will undertake to look into it and write to him.

Extraditions

Andrew MacKinlay: If she will make a statement on co-operation on extraditions between her office and her opposite numbers in (a) EU and (b) EU accession states.

Harriet Harman: The Attorney-General and I have responsibility for extradition cases from Ireland. We discuss these regularly with the Irish Attorney-General. Requests for extradition from EU and accession states are dealt with by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Andrew MacKinlay: Our treaty obligations and those of other European Union countries in relation to extradition are not working. There are 22 requests from France outstanding from the past five years which we have been unable to respond to—one each for 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998. If it was the other way round, some members of our press and hon. Members in this place would be going up the wall. Spain has two requests from 1996. Spain and the UK have a disgraceful mutual track record. Is it not time that we addressed this issue, so that within the European Union there is swift, fast-track extradition, ensuring that people are brought to court in all these fair jurisdictions?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If offences are committed here but the evidence is abroad or the defendant is abroad, we want them back here so that we can bring them to justice. Similarly, if people commit offences abroad and the other country wants them, we should ensure that we expeditiously arrange for them to be extradited.
	The issues that my hon. Friend has raised are starting to be addressed. Last month I attended the launch of an organisation called Eurojust, which is a network of European prosecutors, and I also discussed these issues with my counterpart Justice Ministers in Europe. The new European arrest warrant, when it comes into effect in January, will ensure that we have fewer hurdles and obstacles and less red tape, all of which delay and frustrate the system.

Business of the House

Eric Forth: Will the tax-raising Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

Peter Hain: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 30 June—Remaining stages of the Hunting Bill.
	Tuesday 1 July—Motions to approve Ways and Means Resolutions on the Finance Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
	Wednesday 2 July—Opposition Day [12th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on "a fair deal for passengers and motorists", followed by a debate on "a fair deal for small businesses". Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.
	Thursday 3 July—Debate on the Intelligence and Security Committee Annual Report 2002–03 on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 4 July—Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 7 July—Opposition Day [13th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Tuesday 8 July—Remaining stages of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, followed by Commons consideration of Lords Amendments.
	Wednesday 9 July—Debate on the Convention on the Future of Europe, on a Government motion.
	Thursday 10 July—Debate on economic and monetary union on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 11 July—Private Members' Bills.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for Thursday 17 July will be a cross-cutting questions session on domestic violence.
	Subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the summer recess on Thursday 17 July and return on Monday 8 September. The House will rise again for the conference recess on Thursday 18 September and return on Tuesday 14 October. The House will recall that, in last week's business statement, I gave a commitment to outline the provisional dates for the Christmas recess. Again, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise no later than Monday 22 December and return on, or during the week commencing, Monday 5 January.

Eric Forth: I thank the tax-raising Leader of the House for the business statement.
	I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me, if I may, to pay my own tribute— on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, myself and, I hope, all Members—to Sir Denis Thatcher and to express our profound condolences to Lady Thatcher and to Mark and Carol. I am sure that we all agree that we will probably never know the full extent of Sir Denis's true contribution to our nation, but I simply wish to record that he will be sorely missed.
	I should like to refer to early-day motion 1469, which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, refers to the retirement of Sir Nicolas Bevan, whose last day this is with us in the House. The early-day motion rightly records our thanks and gratitude to Sir Nicolas for his service to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House over a long period, and we wish him the very best in his retirement.
	[That this House notes the distinguished and committed service to Parliament of Sir Nicolas Bevan CB; thanks him for his wise counsel and unfailing courtesy to honourable Members from all sides of the House; and wishes him and his wife, Christine, many happy years in retirement.]
	Does the tax-raising Leader of the House recall saying, last Thursday,
	"I very much share . . . his great respect for Parliament"—
	he was referring to one of his predecessors—
	"I have fought for democracy and liberty all my political life"?—[Official Report, 19 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 501.]
	That is what he said. Is that the same person who had previously said, as quoted in the Morning Star,
	"We cannot achieve Socialism through Parliamentary channels alone"?
	I hope that he has thought better of that, but we will suspend judgment until we see what happens.
	The tax-raising Leader of the House has announced today that three major, controversial Bills will be given only one day each for their remaining stages. I am talking about the Hunting Bill, to which a very large number of amendments have been tabled by hon. Members on both sides of the House and which is very controversial, and the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill—which, again, has been given only one day, even though we have still properly to consider GP contracts and foundation hospitals—to say nothing of the Finance Bill, to which I suppose we must expect an amendment to be tabled in the name of the tax-raising Leader of the House to hold with what he said, or perhaps did not say. Perhaps we will hear from him about that later.
	There will be only one day in the House of Commons to debate those enormous Bills with very large numbers of amendments. That cannot be satisfactory. It cannot be the way in which the House should seek to hold the Government to account. So I simply ask the Leader of the House this: why do we not sit on Friday 18 July and Monday 21 July, for example? There is no reason whatsoever—he has also said that such things are subject to the progress of business—why we cannot linger just a day or two longer. Their lordships are doing that to fulfil their duties, and there is no reason whatsoever why the House cannot do so too. I hope that he will give that serious consideration.
	When will we have a further statement on Iraq? I believe that the House will have to be told not only about security—certainly in regard to the tragic events of just a few days ago, on which more facts are still emerging—but about post-war reconstruction. I hope that the Leader of the House can assure us that, some time before the recess, we will have a proper, comprehensive statement on Iraq, so that the House may be updated on developments there and can hold Ministers to account for what is happening there.
	Does the tax-raising Leader of the House recall the Prime Minister saying, on 23 June,
	"The reason why we have said that we will have a referendum on the single currency . . . is that it does represent a fundamental change in our constitutional arrangements"?—[Official Report, 23 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 721.]
	That is what the Prime Minister said, so this question must arise: if the Government have finally recognised what we in the Conservative party have known all along—that the euro raises profound constitutional as well as economic implications—and that is the reason that the Prime Minister has given for holding a referendum on the euro, why, logically, cannot we have a referendum on the true constitutional changes that will occur following the Convention? I think that we need to hear that, and be told why that link has not yet been made in the Prime Minister's mind.
	Finally, can we have a debate entitled, "Letting the Cat out of the Bag". I am sure that the tax-raising Leader of the House will recall releasing the text of a speech in which he said:
	"I am saying we face a situation equally where the top rate of tax, the 40 per cent. band, now catches far too many middle income employees including teachers and police officers. This presents us with hard choices. I think the . . . rich might well be prepared to contribute a bit more."
	That was the original text of the speech that was not eventually delivered. He must have been aware that his right hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) agreed with him. Indeed, his right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) went even further. He said:
	"The hyper-rich can certainly pay more. I am concerned that under this government inequality is once again growing."
	The Prime Minister, however, said:
	"The government's policy is clear—we are not raising the top rate of tax."
	The Mirror newspaper then said:
	"A senior No 10 source branded the Cabinet Minister"—
	the tax-raising Leader of the House—"an idiot". In the light of all this, cannot we have a debate on the matter to clear the air? We can now see what the hidden agenda of the Labour Party is. Since we cannot believe a word the Prime Minister says any more, should we rather not believe what his right hon. Friends are saying? Let us have a debate about it.

Peter Hain: Let me deal first with the serious part of that intervention. I join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Denis Thatcher and agree with his statement that the whole House will wish to send its condolences to Baroness Thatcher and her family. The family, including Denis, have played a very important role in British public life, and I am sure that we would all want to acknowledge that.
	Secondly, I agree with and join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Sir Nicolas Bevan, who has been a great servant of this House and on many an occasion has given me good advice—

John Bercow: You might have taken it.

Peter Hain: I have always taken it. I have even shared the odd glass of wine with Sir Nicholas on occasion. I wish him happiness in whatever his future career or retirement might hold. I am sure that somebody of such talent will not be idle.
	I note that the shadow Leader of the House has clearly changed his titles and his message. Apparently, I am no longer the part-time Leader of the House—[Hon. Members: "You are!"] No, apparently I am not. I now have another label. We will wait to see what the label is next week. I notice, however, that at least for once the right hon. Gentleman is on-message with the Leader of the Opposition, who referred to me yesterday with my full title, which is Leader of the House of Commons. I am glad that the shadow Leader of the House is for once following his leader and staying on-message with the leadership.
	The shadow Leader of the House made various references to quotes from me a long time ago, and no doubt those will be a regular feature of his interventions, to which I look forward. In that case, no doubt he will also tell the House about his youth, which I am advised was spent in the Communist party. We might find some interesting things that he said at that time, too.
	The shadow Leader of the House made a series of points about Bills only having one day. He knows, as everybody in the House knows, that that is fully adequate time for the scrutiny required at that stage in the parliamentary process, there having been very full scrutiny, and his colleagues on the Back Benches have had every opportunity to do that.
	The shadow Leader of the House asks that we sit for longer and cut into the summer recess. Perhaps that is why he is shadow Leader of the House and will remain shadow Leader of the House. One of the decisions taken by my predecessor but one was to publish a calendar of the House in advance, which is enormously beneficial to hon. Members and their families. When possible, we will stick to that, although it was obviously not possible on one or two occasions earlier this year. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, on reflection, that his proposition was not a sensible one to advance.
	On Iraq, I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point that there is a fast-developing situation and the dreadful news of the deaths of the six Royal Military policemen only recently just indicates that. The House will be updated, and that will happen in due course.
	On the question about the euro and the European constitution, one of the interesting points about the clamour from the Conservatives and their media allies for a referendum on the European constitutional treaty is that they have demanded it before they know the outcome. We have already been through nearly 16 months of detailed negotiations—I was the Government's representative—in the Convention on the Future of Europe to create a consensus. The Convention brought together 100 representatives of national Governments and Parliaments, the European Parliament and the European Commission who, with alternates, formed a body of about 200 people. For the first time, a draft European constitutional treaty has been debated in the open with full transparency and scrutiny. That has given us a good basis to go to the intergovernmental conference for further negotiations.
	At the end of that process, normal procedures will be followed. A report will be made to the House. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that we will want to involve the House in debate over the course of the coming months. We will table a motion on which there will no doubt be a vote. No doubt the Government will be opposed, and the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues may table an amendment to demand a referendum, as they are free to do, if that is what they want. At the end of the process, people will be able to judge whether the new constitutional treaty will be good for Britain, as I believe that it will be. Britain's interests will be protected in a way that is possible by being at the heart of Europe. That has enabled us to get a very good deal on common agricultural policy reform, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will announce later. That is an example of the Government being right at the heart of the Europe and negotiating a good deal for Britain, as we will on the new constitutional treaty.
	The right hon. Gentleman referred to "Letting the cat out of the bag". That was a typical engagingly flamboyant statement. He is an eloquent shadow Leader of the House—much more eloquent than the leader himself—and I look forward to hearing many such statements in the coming weeks.

Paul Tyler: May I first associate myself and my colleagues with the tributes to Sir Denis Thatcher and the expressions of condolence to Lady Thatcher and her family? Many would see him as a model No. 10 consort, so perhaps this is an occasion on which we should record our admiration and gratitude to all those who, as husbands, wives, partners and families, are there in the background to support those of us in public life at different levels.
	May I also record my gratitude and that of my colleagues to your Secretary, Mr. Speaker, not only for his unfailing courtesy to all Members of all parties and his wise advice, but for his commitment to the good order of our business and the way in which Parliament does its job? We wish him every success in his future career.
	The Leader of the House was factually incorrect to say that all matters of the Finance Bill were properly considered in Committee—they simply were not. Many of the Bill's provisions, especially those relating to stamp duty, were brought forward at a late stage and were not properly consulted on or discussed in any detail in Committee. Of course, the Finance Bill is unique because it does not get the second chance of scrutiny in the other place. It is outrageous to try to push it through this House without proper scrutiny.
	That point gives me the opportunity to ask the Leader of the House about his intended plan for the debate on the future of the House of Lords. He will know that the Government have less than a fortnight to respond to the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform—the reply must be made by 9 July. I am sure he will also recall that he and all his colleagues signed up to the manifesto promise:
	"We are committed to completing House of Lords reform . . . to make it more representative and democratic".
	The Leader of the House will be the first to recognise that in the light of the probable legislative programme in the coming Session, unless real progress is made now to fulfil that promise, it is unlikely that we will achieve it in this Parliament. A manifesto is usually a programme for a Parliament, not a long-term aspiration.
	The right hon. Gentleman will also know that on 4 February, the vote in this House, which everyone keeps saying must be the predominant view on such issues, resulted in a clear majority against a fully appointed House of Lords, despite the fact that that appeared to be the preference of the then Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister. The majority was 78. It would clearly be an affront to this House if proposals were introduced that effectively made the other place a fully appointed House. It would be a direct insult to the view of the House.
	Since the right hon. Gentleman voted for a considerable proportion of elected Members in the other place—100 per cent., 80 per cent. and 60 per cent.—he will also recall that a majority of this House, some 332 Members, voted for a substantial proportion of elected Members in the other place. Will there be a White Paper and will the Government introduce proposals, or will we be given a draft Bill to enable us to implement the views of this House? Finally, as the right hon. Gentleman and the Lord Chancellor are now in a position to aid and abet those of us who want to reform the other place, when are we going to get it?

Peter Hain: May I first associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's comment on our families in the background who make great sacrifices? That was particularly true of Denis Thatcher and the Thatcher family at large.
	I do not accept the point about the Finance Bill, and I have said what I have to say about that. On the future of House of Lords reform, when we are ready to report to the House on how we intend to proceed, we will do so. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out how I voted. That is on the record and it remains on the record. It is important to explain that there was no clear consensus.

Paul Tyler: Yes, there was: 332.

Peter Hain: Well, I do not think that it is true that there was a clear consensus on any of the options.
	Yes, there is a manifesto promise. It is often forgotten that our Labour Government have already reformed the House of Lords in the most radical way that any Government have done, or even attempted to do, not just in living memory, but throughout the last century. There is unfinished business and that will be undertaken.

Kevin Brennan: May we have a debate on innovative practices in prescription in the NHS, in particular the Cardiff book prescription scheme, which allows general practitioners to prescribe highly effective self-help books for people with mild to moderate mental health problems? It was pioneered in Cardiff by Dr. Neil Frude and Dr. Jackie Gantley. It is a world first and worthy of being rolled out across the rest of the UK.
	In welcoming my right hon. Friend to his new post as Leader of the House, may I offer him some advice? Should he require any reading himself to deal with the shadow Leader of the House and the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman, I suggest "Arsenic and Old Lace".

Peter Hain: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's suggestion and will bear it in mind.
	I applaud my hon. Friend for bringing that innovative scheme to the attention of the House. It deserves a lot of scrutiny and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will want to consider it. My hon. Friend has the opportunity on Wednesday to raise the matter again during Welsh questions. No doubt other opportunities will also arise.

Andrew MacKay: As the Leader of the House has a distinguished record, unlike some of his colleagues, on standing up to tyranny in Zimbabwe, and as he has spoken out on a number of occasions, will he give us a guarantee that there will at least be a ministerial statement, and preferably a debate, on Zimbabwe before the House rises? Those of us who were present in Portcullis House yesterday to hear Andrew Meldrum, the distinguished correspondent for The Guardian and The Observer who was thrown out of Zimbabwe, came away with a clear conclusion that it is urgent that the House takes further action.

Peter Hain: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's general sentiments. I share his horror at the atrocities committed over the years by Robert Mugabe's regime. Tyranny is running riot in Zimbabwe. It has to be stopped and checked. I think that Zimbabwe's neighbours share a responsibility for seeking to end that situation, which is disfiguring the whole of the southern African sub-continent, especially in terms of investor confidence. I also applaud what the right hon. Gentleman said about Andrew Meldrum. He is a fine and brave journalist who was kicked out by Mugabe and his thugs. He bears testimony to the dreadful damage that the regime is doing to that once beautiful, proud and effective country.
	On whether there is time for a statement, I shall certainly draw the right hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of the Foreign Secretary. We will have to see what transpires.

Gerald Kaufman: With regard to the Hunting Bill on Monday, will my right hon. Friend give me two assurances on procedure? First, it has been put to me that there is an intention on the part of the Government that the Bill will be recommitted to a Standing Committee at the end of the Report stage. If that were to happen, it would be an underhanded device, which would arouse intense anger in this House and elsewhere. That being so, I ask my right hon. Friend to give me an absolutely categorical assurance that there is no such intention.
	Secondly, my right hon. Friend will recall that on 21 March 2002, the Minister for Rural Affairs, speaking from the Dispatch Box, gave me an assurance that, in whatever form the Bill is completed, it will proceed to the House of Lords in that form. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs said:
	"I am absolutely clear that if the Government introduce a Bill that is amended in the House of Commons, our promise in relation to allowing the Parliament Act to obtain will apply."—[Official Report, 21 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 462.]
	When, later in the year, I wrote to my right hon. Friend asking him to reaffirm that commitment, in a letter to me dated 23 September 2002, he said:
	"I certainly stand by . . . my reply to your question".
	I should therefore like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to assure me, first, that there is no intention whatever to seek to recommit the Bill, and, secondly—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Peter Hain: First, I associate myself with my right hon. Friend's long and honourable record of voting in the House and arguing persistently for an end to cruelty. That has been exactly my position and I have often joined him in the Lobby in echoing that. The Government have a manifesto commitment on the matter and it is one that we intend to fulfil.
	On my right hon. Friend's second question on the Parliament Acts and the procedure around the Hunting Bill, I confirm that the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs on 21 March 2002, which is recorded in Hansard, stands. That is the position that we will follow and the Government stand by it.
	On my right hon. Friend's first question, we share the same objectives. It is the overwhelming view of the House to end cruelty, but it would be remiss of me not to explain the procedures that are likely to occur to fulfil the will of the House, whatever that might be on Monday. We are not sure which amendments will be carried and we are not sure whether all the amendments that have currently been tabled will be the end of the story. Further amendments may also be tabled. We will have to see.
	I have been advised by parliamentary counsel—I am sure that my right hon. Friend will want me to be absolutely open and transparent about this, as I always hope to be with the House—that the Bill may need to be recommitted—[Hon. Members: "Ah!"] Well, wait for it; it is actually helpful to my right hon. Friend. I have been advised by parliamentary counsel that the Bill may need to be recommitted for the purpose of making technical and consequential amendments, without which the Bill, as amended, may not be effective law. That amended Bill would obviously have to be debated on Report and Third Reading and, as a result, it is doubtful whether it is possible to get it into the Lords before the recess. This is not a question of seeking to frustrate the intentions—

Gerald Kaufman: Absolutely disgraceful.

Peter Hain: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend said that, as it is surely in his interest and the interest of the whole House to have a good Bill. It may be that recommittal is not necessary. Technically and in other respects, the Bill may be in good enough shape to go to the House of Lords—[Interruption.] Actually, this is quite an important point and my right hon. Friend deserves a full answer. He will understand that if a defective Bill leaves this House, it will not be covered by the Parliament Act. It is therefore in his interests, as it is in the interests of the Minister for Rural Affairs, the Government as a whole and Labour Members who want to join together in banning cruelty, to ensure that the Bill that leaves this House for the other place is not defective, not least because it would not be covered by the Parliament Act.

John Bercow: Will the tax-raising and part-time Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the subject of the Hattersley thesis on taxation? As long ago as 13 March 1995, Lord Hattersley said in The Guardian:
	"Labour now has a clear choice. It can either be the party of higher taxation and proud of it; or the party of higher taxes which it is ashamed to describe, afraid to admit and incapable of calculating with any accuracy."
	Does the tax-raising and part-time Leader of the House agree that such a debate would provide an excellent opportunity to display both the divisions within the Government and the predominant opinion of the Labour party that the pockets of the British people should continue to be plundered on an unprecedented scale?

Peter Hain: The answer is no. The real choice facing the nation is between a Tory economic programme of boom and bust, unfair taxation and 20 per cent. public spending cuts and a Labour policy of economic stability, fair taxation and public investment to generate high-quality public services. That is the choice before the nation, and I am confident that it will decide in favour of Labour and reject the Tories yet again at the next general election.

David Winnick: As regards Monday's business, will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be a genuine free vote among Labour Members, including Ministers? Arising from what he said a moment ago, does he accept both that there is an overwhelming desire among a large majority of Labour MPs for a total ban on fox hunting, and that the matter should be resolved in this Parliament, although it should have been resolved in the last Parliament? Will the Leader of the House bear that in mind? There should be no shilly-shallying to avoid making a decision which, as I have said, is wanted by the majority of us and, I believe, a majority of people in the country.

Peter Hain: I share my hon. Friend's objectives, and we all share them as a Government—[Interruption.] Well, the Conservatives do not because they do not want to end cruelty. We are united in wanting to do so. The issue is about taking the Bill forward in a coherent form—that is the only issue to arise from the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I can confirm that there will be a free vote and that the will of the House will be respected. May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) on his birthday? I understand that he is 70 today, and I wish him a happy birthday.

Andrew Mitchell: May I raise an important matter with the Leader of the House that is of great concern throughout Sutton Coldfield and the Birmingham area—care homes for the elderly and the policies being pursued by Birmingham council? Over the past three years, more than 120 beds have closed in Birmingham, and projections this week suggest that a further 176 will go. Meanwhile, the latest figures show that 146 people are waiting in local hospitals for a place in a care home. There is also a huge differential between what Birmingham city council pays for places in its own homes and what it pays to the private sector, which is a clear breach of the Government's best-value guidelines. It would be most helpful if we could have a chance before the recess to discuss these matters, which are of great importance, not least because there is great concern in Birmingham this week about the workings of the National Care Standards Commission and recent events in connection with that. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will try to find a slot before the House rises on 18 July.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a time for me to intervene. Questions are far too long, and perhaps the Leader of the House can bear in mind the need for brief replies.

Peter Hain: I understand the importance of the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman. There will be plenty of opportunities to raise these matters, as there have been in the recent past.

Kevin Hughes: May I probe my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about the Report stage of the Hunting Bill on Monday? Given my four years' experience of serving in the Whips Office, during which time I helped to guide many Government Bills through the House, I was struck when I examined the Bill yesterday by the enormous technical difficulties that would arise if a substantial amendment, such as a total ban, were agreed. I hope that there is a ban, and I would vote for such an amendment. However, it would change the Bill dramatically. My right hon. Friend has explained some of the technical details, but could he go a bit further and clarify the timetable, if such an amendment were accepted, for example, on recommittal and when the Bill would come back from the House of Lords? On Monday, people will want to know how long the process will take. Clearly, we want a proper Bill to leave the House and go to the Lords.

Peter Hain: We do not know exactly what the timing consequences will be until the end of the Report stage, when we will know what shape the Bill is in. We do not yet know whether it will need recommittal then or not. However, on the basis of the advice that I have been given, it is pretty clear that it will not be possible to get it into the Lords, as we had intended, before the recess if recommittal is necessary. Recommittal is not something that the Government want, but it needs to be an option for the reasons that my hon. Friend gave and, as I have explained, that will depend on the shape of the Bill after Report. It does not serve any objective, even for people wanting a total ban, which I have consistently voted for over the years, to proceed with a Bill that is not technically in order. It would not be covered by the Parliament Act, so that is not a sensible way for the House to proceed.

Simon Thomas: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1466, which deals with the great public debate on genetically modified crops and was tabled by the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher)?
	[That this House welcomes the Government's decision to initiate a major public debate on GM food and crops; urges all constituents to join in this debate through the use of the questionnaire on www.gmnation.org.uk; notes the deep public concern that has been widely expressed to date on the health and environmental implications of GM food and crops; further notes that much of the research evidence relevant to this debate will not be available within the timeframe of the consultation period; and therefore calls on the Government to extend the consultation period to enable maximum public participation on a fully informed basis.]
	When can we have a little bit of that public debate in the House? It may have escaped the right hon. Gentleman's notice that such a debate is going on, because in Wales, his other area of responsibility, it has amounted to no more than a handful of public meetings and a consultation, the form for which is not available in Welsh. There is nothing on the website of the National Assembly for Wales about the consultation, even though the Assembly itself says that it is a GM-free zone. Importantly, the Government will not release their contribution until the debate has ended. When can we have a debate in Parliament, in Government time, on the material substance and facts about the future of GM crops in this country?

Peter Hain: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman's request must be considered in the usual way, but he should be aware that we have already extended the timetable for the debate on GM by three months at the request of the public debate steering board. There is plenty of time for the public and the hon. Gentleman to get involved, and there will be opportunities for him to do so in the House in the usual ways. The deadline for feedback to the steering board is 18 July.

Ian Cawsey: From early-day motion 1218, my right hon. Friend will be aware that the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury are working towards an announcement on whether to place an order with BAE Systems for the Hawk jet.
	[That this House notes the decision to award the contract for the Hawk jet fighter is due to be made; recognises that thousands of jobs directly and indirectly through the supply chain depend upon this work; further notes the importance of the UK aerospace industry as a world leader providing thousands of high quality jobs in addition to supporting the UK's manufacturing sector; and calls on the Government to make an early decision in support of UK aerospace manufacturing.]
	Given that the workers are under precautionary notice of redundancy at the end of July, can my right hon. Friend arrange for an early statement on the matter and a decision that will give the British military the very best British kit?

Peter Hain: I share my hon. Friend's objective of taking advantage of the very best British kit and welcome the fact that he raises the matter. I will draw it to the attention of the relevant Cabinet Ministers because it is important that the interests involved are secured.

George Young: The Leader of the House announced a debate on Tuesday week on the remaining stages of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill—a Bill that was programmed in Standing Committee, with 55 clauses and 46 Government amendments not debated at all. Does he agree that that is unsatisfactory? Will he consider reverting to the previous regime, whereby the Government indicated the date by which a Bill should emerge from Standing Committee, but up to that point there was great flexibility as to how that time should be used? Does he agree that that might enable the House to scrutinise Bills more effectively than does the current regime?

Peter Hain: Although I bow to the right hon. Gentleman's long experience of these matters, he may think, on reflection, that the procedure that we have adopted has led to greater scrutiny. Nevertheless, I shall look into the points that he raised.

Gordon Prentice: Can we have an early statement from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about Government plans to privatise file stores? Those file stores are dotted around the country and hold sensitive information about citizens who are claiming social security benefits. The plan is to privatise the file stores by July next year, and no in-house bid is being invited—only a private sector solution. One of those file stores is in my constituency. There are good civil servants working there, and they want to stay civil servants. They do not want to be moved into the private sector. It is an important matter that affects many constituents.

Peter Hain: I understand the importance of the matter to my hon. Friend, his constituents and those of other hon. Members. I shall draw his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

Paul Goodman: Some of us voted for the recent war because we were assured by Ministers that Saddam possessed a weapon of mass destruction that was a threat to our peace and security. Will the Leader of the House reconsider what he said a moment ago about an Iraq debate? Some of us would like to question Ministers very closely on those matters.

Peter Hain: Obviously, an inquiry is taking place through the Foreign Affairs Committee. No doubt it will report and the usual opportunities for consideration will follow. The hon. Gentleman joined us in the Lobby in support of the Government. Having been a Foreign Office Minister with responsibility for the middle east, covering the Iraq desk for nearly two years, having been in the Foreign Office when much of the process was building up and a Cabinet Minister at the time of the decision to take military action, I can say categorically that I have seen intelligence, shown to me by the most senior members of the Secret Intelligence Service and the Joint Intelligence Committee, which was conclusive on weapons of mass destruction. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman about my own experience, which persuaded me that what we were doing was absolutely necessary.

Julia Drown: It has been reported that at next Monday's World Bank meeting, the US will block proposals to increase the voice and voting power of African countries there, whereas two weeks ago we thought there was the political will to achieve those proposals. Given the strong support in the House for Africa, and given that the Government have said that they want to support Africa in that way, could we urgently debate how we might influence US policy on the matter? If a debate is not possible, will my right hon. Friend get the message to Ministers that Members want them to do everything they can to achieve a positive outcome for Africa on Monday?

Peter Hain: As a son of Africa, though a British subject by birth, I obviously share my hon. Friend's desire to see a good deal for Africa. The Government have made that a priority to be achieved through the New Partnership for Africa's Development programme, which will bring enormous opportunities and resources to Africa in exchange for reform. I shall draw urgently to the attention of the Secretary of State for International Development the points that my hon. Friend makes.

Roger Gale: In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the Leader of the House chided the Opposition for seeking a referendum on the European constitution without knowing its contents. The Government, of course, have refused such a referendum on precisely the same terms. A few moments later, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the European constitution and the change that it would bring about. Is it a constitution and is it a constitutional change? If so, why do not the same rules apply to that constitution as apply to the euro and the agreement that the last Conservative Government reached to hold a referendum on it?

Peter Hain: The only Government who have ever held a referendum on Europe is a Labour Government in 1975. The only Government who will hold a referendum on the euro if the circumstances are right to join is a Labour Government. We have a proud record of referendums on Europe and we need no lessons from Conservatives, who have never supported referendums until they opportunistically see the chance to press seriously for the withdrawal of Britain from the European Union, which the shadow Leader of the House supports. That is their objective. As for the opportunity to debate on these matters, on 9 July—as I announced—there will be a full debate on a substantive motion.

Brian Jenkins: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a short debate, if not next week then before the recess, on the relationship between Parliament, Government and the media, to allow us to underline the political neutrality of the self-monitoring, publicly funded BBC?

Peter Hain: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. The director of communications at No. 10 spent some time on the matter before the Select Committee yesterday. There is a real issue for the political class—those of us at Westminster and the media, who together occupy a political bubble around Westminster in which messages are transmitted between us which bear little resemblance to what the public outside understand. There is a serious problem about the public's engagement with Westminster politics and the barriers put up around it by the political class to which we all belong. That is the issue that has to be addressed, in addition to the one raised by my hon. Friend.

Nicholas Winterton: May I pay personal tribute to Sir Nicolas Bevan for his outstanding service to the House over many years and his unfailing courtesy and friendship, which I have greatly valued?
	Following up the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), I make a plea to the Leader of the House. If a Bill goes from Standing Committee back to the House on Report without many of the important clauses and new clauses being debated, if the Government table new clauses for the remaining stages of the Bill, and if it is an important Bill—I shall not name one, for obvious reasons—is it not obligatory for the Government to provide adequate time, which is more than one day, for the remaining stages? On behalf of the House I make a fervent plea to the Leader of the House to ensure that the House does its job properly.

Peter Hain: I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman raises, from his position of expertise and authority and speaking as he does on behalf of the Procedure Committee. The outcomes of pre-programming—before the procedures that the Government enacted for orderly business—were not guaranteed either. If we could reach a better understanding with the Opposition on how to manage time sensibly, that would be a different matter.

David Chaytor: My right hon. Friend will know that on Tuesday the Government published the draft Bill on the nuclear decommissioning authority, which proposes spending £50 billion on cleaning up old nuclear power stations. He may also know that on Tuesday evening the United Nations Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled against the Government by giving Ireland the right to be fully consulted on future decisions about Sellafield. Given that the high costs of reprocessing were a factor in the insolvency of British Energy, and that British Nuclear Fuels is about to announce a £1 billion loss on its accounts for the last financial year, is it not time that we had a full debate about the future of nuclear reprocessing and Sellafield, including the economic, environmental and security implications of sitting on 100 tonnes of plutonium?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend brings to us a very welcome expertise and interest in this area for which I think the whole House is grateful. I urge him to continue to display that interest and take it forward. Of course, there will be opportunities for him to raise the matter in future, but I am grateful that he has done so now.

Angela Browning: Instead of cross-cutting questions in Westminster Hall, please could we have a three-hour session here with the Prime Minister on cutting, cross questions—very cross questions—so that he can explain some of his recent statements? They include the suggestion that officials never give evidence to Select Committees and his previous assertion that there was no constitutional basis to the euro, when he now says that there is such a basis. We could also ask a question that I and many others have asked him in seeking to find out when he knew about the dodgy document—but he has clearly failed to answer. There are many more cross questions for this particular Prime Minister.

Peter Hain: That was a very cross question, if I may say so. The hon. Lady knows full well that the issue of the documents about Iraq was discussed in great detail yesterday in the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, and it will be discussed again in future. The Prime Minister is due to appear before the Joint Committee in the meeting that he has agreed to. The hon. Lady gave the impression that the Prime Minister was not willing to answer questions—he does so weekly in the House and he has given more statements in recent times than probably any Prime Minister in living memory.

Eric Forth: He does not give any answers.

Peter Hain: Perhaps that is because the questions are rubbish.
	The Prime Minister has also made himself available to the House to be questioned by Chairmen of Select Committees, in an unprecedented fashion. He is more accountable to the House than any Prime Minister in living memory, and we are proud that that is the case.

Joan Ruddock: I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer that he gave to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). The consultation was indeed postponed for three months, but the period of consultation on GM does not cover the whole period in which there are results to be released by the Government on this subject. Given that President Bush has made the outrageous comment that the very sensible EU moratorium on genetically modified organisms is the cause of famine in Africa, surely it is time that this House debated these critical issues, whether there should be commercialisation of GM crops in this country, and whether such crops have any relevance at all to starvation in Africa.

Peter Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, like his predecessor, is aware of the public concern and he will obviously bear it strongly in mind. He will listen very carefully to the views that she expresses, but as she will be aware, in terms of the activities of the public debate steering board on genetic modification, following on from the six regional launch events, further public meetings are now being organised by local authorities, other organisations and individuals so that people can get involved. People can also participate interactively in the public debate through the website. When that process has come to an end, there will be an opportunity, as there should be, for the House to consider the outcome.

David Burnside: May I add my condolences to those given to Lady Thatcher on the loss of Sir Denis? All hon. Members will have our little memories of Sir Denis. I remember that, when the doors were being closed at a British Airways reception in Blackpool about 10 years ago, Sir Denis came along with his minder and declared, "I do not know what reception I am at, but for God's sake give me a gin and tonic." He was acting as the loyal consort on behalf of the lady when she was up late writing her speech. There are some very fond memories of Sir Denis.
	On behalf of the massed, united ranks of Ulster Unionists in this House over the years, may I also give my thanks to Sir Nicolas for his service to the House?
	Earlier this week, half of the Ulster Unionist parliamentary party resigned the Whip because our party does not oppose the joint declaration from the British and Irish Governments. That requires two pieces of legislation, I believe, that have to be introduced into the House to allow for the possibility of an October election. One of them is the legislation relating to the new sanctions proposals. We object to it, but it must pass through the House in regard to the sanctions for those involved in a future Northern Ireland Executive being involved in non-democratic procedures. The second is legislation to allow a virtual amnesty for on-the-run terrorists and criminals out of Northern Ireland. Will the Leader of the House give the House some guidance? With only three weeks left before the summer recess and only two sitting weeks in September, when will those two pieces of legislation be introduced?

Peter Hain: The business managers are indeed very aware of the issues concerned and will bear in mind the consequences for the business of the House. It is terribly important that we keep our eyes fixed very firmly on the big picture. The people of Northern Ireland overwhelmingly support the Good Friday agreement, they want an end to paramilitary activity, and they want the stability of institutions for which the agreement provided.

Bob Spink: The people of Castle Point have lived for many years with the serious health and social problems caused by the operation of Pitsea tip. Can we have a debate to ensure that proper monitoring and contingency plans are in place to deal with any further problems caused by the operation of that tip and so that we can have an independent risk assessment of the risks associated with the odours and the materials deposited there?

Peter Hain: I will ensure that the Ministers concerned are aware of the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about that matter. Of course, there are opportunities for him to raise it in the House in future.

John Cryer: May I add my tribute to those paid to Sir Nicolas Bevan and wish him all the best in future?
	Further to the earlier request for a debate on early-day motion 1466, which relates to GM foods and was raised in a fairly whinging way by the Welsh nationalist spokesman, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), the fact is that it is extremely welcome that the Government have organised the debate that is now taking place, and we should not take anything away from that. However, given that it is a Government-inspired debate and that there is much public anxiety about GM crops, and given the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) asked about comments made by people in the American Administration, should not we have a full day's debate here, in Government time?

Peter Hain: Again, I have dealt with the point about GM foods previously, and I acknowledge my hon. Friend's interest in the matter. He referred to whinging Welsh nationalists. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) is a valuable Member of this House, but he should not whinge as much as he does. The chief whinger, the leader of Plaid Cymru, having resigned two months ago, has announced today that he is going to re-stand for election to the leadership that he has just vacated. What a shower.

Peter Duncan: Will the tax-raising Leader of the House find Government time to debate the future of shipping services in the light of tax-raising Government press release No. 49, which was issued after the Budget? The change to national insurance will create a direct disincentive to employ British staff on ferry services between my constituency and Northern Ireland. Furthermore, it will directly penalise services between Scotland and Northern Ireland in favour of services to the Irish Republic, inasmuch as national insurance contributions will not be payable by staff working in international waters. The change will directly put Scottish jobs at risk and further prejudice ferry traffic on the north channel route. Will he accept the need for a level playing field for British jobs on British ships?

Peter Hain: This is obviously an important constituency matter for the hon. Gentleman, and I shall ensure that the attention of the relevant Secretaries of State is drawn to it.

Norman Lamb: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement about the desperate situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? There is more news this week of an offensive by Rwandan-backed rebels, which could plunge Rwanda and Uganda back into direct confrontation. Could such a statement also deal with the Government's response to the UN panel of experts' report that was published at the beginning of November last year, pointing to the direct link between exploitation of the country's natural resources and the continuation of the conflict? Nothing much has happened since then. What is the Government's response?

Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the European Union agreed a mission to establish a peacekeeping operation, which is now in the Congo, but the situation is desperate. It is a huge country—virtually the size of the entire European continent—that has been plunged into successive conflicts. The international community, as manifested in Europe's determination to act with the blessing of the United Nations, must ensure that stability is brought to the country.

Andrew Selous: Given that the European constitution will prohibit this House from legislating in relation to agriculture, justice, energy, social policy, economic cohesion, transport, the environment and aspects of public health unless Brussels agrees, does the Leader of the House think that in future it will still be worth being a Member of this House?

Peter Hain: It is interesting that such questions renege on commitments made by previous Conservative Governments to agree to decisions being made at a European level in Britain's interests. I do not recognise any of the threats with which the hon. Gentleman sought to alarm the House in the draft constitution that came out of the European Convention, which I helped to negotiate.

Michael Fabricant: May I echo the calls made by my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins), for a debate on the integrity of news reporting by the BBC? The attack on the BBC that was made yesterday by the director of communications is but the tip of the iceberg. There has been constant pressure on the BBC from this Government for the past six years, and it is far greater than any such pressure that was ever exerted by the likes of Norman Tebbit. It is immensely important that the BBC is not only allowed to report fairly and accurately, but is seen to be allowed to do so. Following the attack made by Alastair Campbell yesterday, that is not the case.

Peter Hain: That question comes from a member of a party that complained to the BBC about its local election coverage. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] Conservative Members agree with that complaint. Alastair Campbell made it perfectly clear yesterday that he of course fully acknowledges the important role of the BBC and its broadcasting responsibilities, and the fact that it generally undertakes that role very well. Nevertheless, he put a series of questions to the BBC. Does it still stand by the allegation that it made on 29 May that Alastair Campbell and/or No. 10 Downing street added in the 45-minute claim? Does it still stand by the allegation made on the same day that he or they did so against the wishes of the intelligence agencies? Does it still stand by the allegation made on that day that both No. 10 and himself, and the intelligence agencies, knew the 45-minute claim to be wrong? Those, and a series of other questions, are very specific points that the BBC has to deal with. It has not answered them yet, and it should do so.

David Cameron: I have a number of people in my constituency who work for hunts and are worried about losing their jobs and livelihoods, and they would like to understand the full implications of what the Leader of the House said today. Will he confirm that if there is not a Report stage on the Hunting Bill after its recommital before the summer recess, and if the House of Lords does not have enough time to consider the Bill before the start of the next Session, it can be carried over only with the permission of the Lords, and the Government will have to reintroduce a Bill at the start of the next Session? Would it not be better to admit that the Government have more important matters on their hands, including Iraq, the health service, education, the Extradition Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill, and consign the whole thing to the dustbin?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Conservative Benches wish to consign it to the dustbin because they do not want to end cruelty. The Government do want to end cruelty, and this House has voted overwhelmingly to do so. We shall have to await the end of the debate on Monday to see where we stand; I have explained to the House in great detail what will happen thereafter.

George Osborne: Could the Leader of the House clear up some of the confusion that has arisen over his role? Is he a licensed critic of the Government, or just a critic?

Peter Hain: I am a Cabinet Minister and I support the Government's policies. He can ask me another question along those lines next time, and continue to do so.

CAP Reform

Margaret Beckett: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the outcome of the final negotiations on the reform of the common agricultural policy, which concluded in Luxembourg at 6.35 am, UK time. [Laughter.] Yes, quite.
	We approached the negotiations with two clear objectives: first, to get the best settlement that we could for UK farmers, consumers, taxpayers and the environment; and, secondly, to get an agreement that could lay the foundations for a successful outcome at the World Trade Organisation negotiations in Mexico later this year.
	In pursuit of those objectives, we set negotiating goals: to simplify the CAP, reducing the burden on farmers; to provide for a substantial shift of support from production to a wider range of rural and environmental activities; and to give the European Union a strong negotiating stance in the WTO negotiations, which reach a key point in Cancun in September.
	I am happy to say that today's agreement delivers what we wanted, as well as real change. The key points are: breaking the link between farm subsidies and production in order to reconnect farmers to their markets, reduce damaging environmental impacts and reduce bureaucracy, which is at the heart of our approach to sustainable food and farming; cross-compliance to make subsidies dependent on meeting standards in key areas such as the environment and animal health and welfare; reducing support prices for butter and rice, bringing them closer to world prices to the benefit of consumers; and a new financial discipline that will trigger action to reduce subsidies if CAP expenditure looks to be in danger of exceeding the agreed ceilings.
	The settlement includes elements that were not on the table in the January package put forward by the European Commissioner. In other words, in some respects it goes beyond those initial proposals. First, national envelopes will allow us to develop targeted schemes to promote sustainable and environmentally friendly farming. Secondly, we have secured a further switch of resources to the second pillar and an earlier start date for modulation. The second pillar funding package that we have secured is more than a third larger than that which was available in the January proposal. For the first time, modulation applies on an EU-wide basis, switching support from production subsidies to targeted support for environmental and rural development objectives across the European Union. Thirdly, we have succeeded in protecting UK farmers from the immediate threat of an unfair settlement as part of the financial discipline process. I will place a detailed summary of the agreement in the Library; I wish Members happy reading.
	The most radical and important element in the package is the new single farm payment, which we can use to replace the plethora of existing direct payment schemes such as arable aid, suckler cow premium, beef special premium, slaughter premium, extensification premium and sheep annual payment, to name but a few. Not only will that greatly simplify the bureaucracy associated with all those schemes, but, more importantly, because the payment is no longer linked to production, farmers will be free to produce for the market rather than for the subsidy. Farming, consumer and environmental interests all strongly supported such a move. We will, of course, consult on the detail of how to proceed, especially as regards use of the national envelopes and the important new provisions for cross-compliance.
	Decoupling is particularly important in the WTO context. This deal enables the EU not only to meet, but to better, the domestic support targets that have been proposed in the WTO negotiations. The reforms should reduce the distortions in world markets that the CAP has caused, and will accordingly contribute to a successful conclusion of the Doha development agenda. I hope that our trading partners will recognise the scale and importance of the change and respond positively to it.
	Reaching the agreement required an immense and a united effort. I want especially to thank our dedicated team of officials; my many Cabinet colleagues who actively engaged in support of our discussions, including the Prime Minister; and, of course, our colleagues in the devolved Administrations, who were closely involved throughout. It shows what we can achieve by working constructively with colleagues in the Agriculture Council. I want to pay special tribute to Commissioner Fischler, who showed considerable courage and tenacity in helping to pilot the agreement.
	It is hard to overstate the importance of this morning's agreement in transforming the core elements of the common agricultural policy and laying down a new direction for its future evolution. Giorgios Drys, the Greek Minister, who did an excellent job of piloting the Council through the negotiations, said that we needed to get agreement for a new CAP. We have done that.

David Lidington: May I begin by offering more than the routine thanks to the Secretary of State for the statement? Conservative Members greatly appreciate the fact that she has come straight from the Luxembourg negotiations to report directly to the House of Commons. She sets an example that, we hope, will inspire some of her Cabinet colleagues.
	As the Secretary of State said, the agreement is detailed and complicated. We will want to study carefully its impact on different agriculture sectors and parts of this country. I hope that the right hon. Lady can do a couple of things that will assist not only the Opposition but all Members of Parliament in the process of analysis. First, I hope that she will allow us time for debate to put the many detailed questions that need to be asked about the agreement. Secondly, I hope that she will publish a detailed assessment of the likely impact of the proposed changes on various types of farm businesses. It is not good enough that we should have to rely on outside bodies such as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, however expert they are in their field. The Government owe it to Parliament to publish their detailed account of the likely impact.
	Conservative Members welcome some aspects of the package. The most obvious is that decoupling—at least of a sort—will take place. I welcome the list of the multiplicity of schemes that could be scrapped in the wake of the agreement. We shall look to the Government to make certain that scrapping the schemes, albeit welcome, is not immediately used as an opportunity in Brussels or Whitehall to deluge farmers with substitute brand new sets of regulations and red tape.
	The reality, however, is that the deal constitutes a botched compromise that falls far short of the radical changes that are needed. British farmers will have to bear more than their fair share of the costs of reform. The leader of the German farmers union said, in reaction to this morning's announcement, that the agreement was a
	"typical EU compromise which gives and takes a little from everyone and creates terrible difficulties for those who have to implement it".
	We hoped for a fair deal for British farmers. However, the agreement carries with it an undoubted risk of big market distortions and unfair competition, especially in the beef and sheep sectors.
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that France and other countries can continue under the terms of the agreement to pay full production subsidies until 2007, and that even afterwards they will be free to link a considerable proportion of their farm support payments not to environmental or rural development schemes but directly to production subsidy? Will she also confirm that the modulation arrangements for transferring money from farm support to environmental or rural development projects discriminate blatantly against British agriculture? Will she further confirm that not only is the system weighted against larger farms—holdings in this country are on average significantly larger than those in the rest of the EU—but that up to one fifth of the money taken from farmers through modulation may be spent elsewhere in the EU on the schemes and under the framework of rules that the European Commission devises?
	We hoped for a fair deal on the environment. Although it is true, as the right hon. Lady said, that today's agreement marks some advance on the previous position, I hope that she will take seriously the World Wide Fund for Nature's description of the deal as "an exercise in cosmetics." The head of agricultural policy at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds told the BBC that the Government have
	"talked a good game on CAP reform. But internationally it appears to have lost out in securing major reforms."
	Revenue from the modulation scheme is supposed to help fund the environmental payments system that was recommended by Sir Don Curry and that the Government promised for 2005 onwards.
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that the arithmetic no longer adds up? The revenue that DEFRA stands to receive from the EU-wide modulation scheme will not be sufficient to cover the sums that had been provisionally budgeted for the entry level environmental scheme. The only way in which she can deliver the environmental improvements that the Government have pledged is through imposing a new, national modulation scheme on top of the Community scheme. That will carry the risk of further market distortion and harming the competitiveness of British farmers when compared with those elsewhere in Europe.
	We hoped that the agreement would mean a fair deal for the developing world through the forthcoming international trade negotiations. It is trade justice week, yet the Secretary of State tells us of her delight in an agreement that will allow production subsidies in some form to continue indefinitely in the EU, despite all the pledges that the Government and other European Governments made at Doha and have subsequently repeated. Neither the Secretary of State nor the presidency conclusions mentioned the need for action to tackle export subsidies, which, as Ministers have admitted, cripple the ability of some of the poorest nations in the world to prosper through trade. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to say whether the detail of the agreement includes some planned action on that.
	The French agriculture ministry gave the game away in a statement this morning. It said, with some satisfaction:
	"This reform preserves—as was France's position all through the negotiations—the essential principles of the Common Agricultural Policy".
	That was France's position throughout the negotiations. The Government promised repeatedly that they would use their influence in Europe to deliver agreements that would serve the interests of British agriculture, the environment and the developing world. However, they have been stitched up yet again by a Franco-German alliance that gives precious little credit for the concessions on so many European issues that the Government and the Prime Minister have been ready to make.
	Again, the Government have failed to deliver on their promises. The gap between promise and delivery explains why so many people in this country are ceasing to believe anything that the Government tell them.

Margaret Beckett: The most evident gap was between reality and the rhetoric of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). I hope that I have not lost track of all his questions.

Robert Smith: It was a speech.

Margaret Beckett: All right, it was a speech. The hon. Member for Aylesbury should ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for a debate, but I assure him that we shall do everything that we can to publish material that is as detailed as possible to assist hon. Members to assess the impact of the package. Consequently, he may find that he regrets some of his remarks.
	I shall not bother to go into the list of quotes from people who said that the agreement does not go far enough. Many of us would have liked to go further, but pretending that the agreement is a bad result simply because we did not get everything that we wanted out of the negotiations shows the hon. Gentleman's total lack of experience in negotiating.
	On the issue of unfair competition, it is correct that other member states will be able to keep production subsidies until 2007, should they choose to do so. It is also correct that, beyond that, they will have the option to keep a restricted range of subsidies—I will not bother to go into the technicalities unless someone particularly wants me to. A certain number of premiums will be available, but they will obviously be much more restricted than hitherto. Member states will be able to keep coupled only a minority of the payments available.
	The point that the hon. Gentleman has totally missed is that we do not consider this to be an advantage. Indeed, when he said that we all thought that decoupling was a good thing and that we wished that we had had more of it, he seemed not to notice that he was shooting his own argument in the foot. If others wish to keep bureaucratic schemes that are, in many cases, very unpopular with their own farmers, it is no part of my plan to stand in their way. However, I believe that many farmers in Britain and across the rest of Europe—clearly, the German farmer whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned was not one of them—are fast coming round to the idea that they would like to have the advantage of total decoupling. We believe that it would give British farmers a competitive advantage, which is one of the reasons why we support it.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked how the money would be worked out in terms of UK agriculture. As everyone knows from the January proposals, the initial package from the Commission contained quite a large gap between the funding that was raised in the United Kingdom for modulation and the money that could be spent here—not least, I am afraid, because of the appalling deal that was made by the previous Conservative Government when the basic agreement was reached on rural funding. We have made strides towards redressing that, however, and we hope to make further strides. At least we now have, potentially, some impartial criteria, rather than just an historic spend against which this can be judged. In consequence, we have massively improved the options available to UK farmers.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether there would be insufficient revenues to cover the scheme proposed by Sir Don Curry. That is not the case. The details are buried in annexe something or other—I think that it is annexe 7, but I would not swear to it. The text that I saw this morning was literally hot off the photocopier at about 4 am, and I have lost track of what the number is, but there is a special annexe dealing with that issue, which we believe covers us completely for transitional arrangements.
	The hon. Gentleman then asked about the possibility of the UK voluntarily modulating on top of the EU scheme. Given that the EU proposal—although larger than the original—is not for the 10 per cent. modulation proposed in Sir Don Curry's recommendation, we shall clearly be looking to address that issue. We shall have to consult on how we do that, but my impression was that both sides of the House welcomed Sir Don's report. If this represents a change of heart on the part of the Conservative party, it is interesting to note it.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked whether this represented a fair deal for the developing world, because some form of subsidy would continue. Sadly, perhaps, nobody has ever said that we could get a better deal and better market access for the developing world only if all subsidies that had been put in place by the developed world were abolished. Personally, I could live very happily with that happening, but no one has claimed that it was likely, or, indeed, part of the negotiating stance. It is not part of the package that has come of Geneva, which is intended to lay the basis for a sound foundation for the Doha discussions. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's ambition in that respect, but he is wrong to suggest that the package does not meet this requirement.
	As for other remarks that other member states have made on these issues, this outcome was one of the goals that the Agriculture Council set itself. The atmosphere inside the Council was extremely constructive, helpful and co-operative, with all member states willing to try to help solve the specific problems that had arisen in other member states. One of the criteria that we set ourselves when we embarked on this final stage was that, if at all possible, there should be no specific winners, and no losers. That is the case.

Roger Williams: May I first draw the attention of hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests in relation to agriculture?
	The Liberal Democrats broadly welcome the move from support for European agriculture that is linked to production, but this has certainly not happened in the decisive way that the trade justice campaign would have wanted. It remains to be seen how the reforms will be viewed at the WTO negotiations later in the year. Indeed, the French ministry of agriculture was boasting on its website this morning that it had retained all its protection and all the ramifications of the CAP, in terms of support for production.
	The reforms seem to amount to a virtual repatriation of agricultural policy, with all the dangers of trade distortion that that entails. There is also the danger of nations that are not as scrupulous as us in using state aid introducing such aid under the camouflage of the various options for decoupling and the implementation times. We will press the Government to design the scheme for this country in the best interests of the British farmer, and to allow for distinct solutions to be reached for the devolved nations.
	We welcome a number of the announcements that have been made, in particular the commitment to retain at least 80 per cent. of the modulated money to be used in its country of origin. That is a great improvement on the first proposals, which limited us to less than 20 per cent., as a result of the Tories' reticence in claiming support for pillar 2 money in previous years. We also welcome the fact that the advisory service will no longer be compulsory, and that it will be a voluntary service that farmers can make use of, rather than being a requirement of the scheme.
	We also welcome the ability of countries to decouple by 100 per cent. It was not clear from the right hon. Lady's speech whether it was her intention to introduce a scheme of that nature in this country. Perhaps she could let us know whether that is the case. We understand that the French expressed concern about the possibility of the abandonment and dereliction of land. In the peripheral areas of this country, too, there is concern that land could go out of agricultural production altogether. Will the Secretary of State tell us how the Government are going to tackle that issue? We also welcome the support for new entrants and young farmers, but it has not been spelled out in detail. It would be much appreciated if the Secretary of State could help us on that.
	We are concerned about trade distortion, and I am not satisfied that the Secretary of State has given a clear indication of how the Government are going to ensure that farmers are supported in that regard. We have campaigned for a long time for a level playing field in terms of agricultural support, but this morning's announcement seems to leave us with a rather mountainous landscape, with hidden valleys, and peaks clouded in mist, because of the uncertainty over how other countries will implement the reforms, and the effect that that will have on British agriculture.
	We are also worried about how the entitlements are going to work, especially for new entrants and for people who are taking up new tenancies. Will people who are giving up tenancies have ownership of the entitlements, or will those entitlements go back to the landlord? How will these provisions be applied when splitting land for sale?
	Uncertainty is the greatest problem for any business, and that applies to farming, too. We are pleased that this announcement has been made. It takes us some way along the line, but I believe that it has still to be agreed by the Heads of Government meeting. If that is not the case, perhaps the Secretary of State could let us know. Farmers will want to make their business decisions shortly, and certainty is the key to their being able to do so.

Margaret Beckett: Like the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), the hon. Gentleman says that this will not be enough for the Trade Justice Movement. Let us show some common sense; it is not the job of organisations such as the Trade Justice Movement to be satisfied with whatever Governments achieve. Their job is always to be prodding us on. If they were not doing so, they would not be doing their job. I do not find it the slightest bit surprising that this will not be enough for such organisations, but it is an awful lot more than either they or anyone else—including me—thought we would get not so long ago. We must take these things with a pinch of salt.
	I am mindful of the fact that every member state needs opportunities to provide prosperity for their work force and their farmers out of the package. I would simply and gently ask Opposition Members to cast their minds back—or just look through the press cuttings—to what some of my colleagues were saying some weeks or months ago and then reread what they are saying today. I say nothing more than that.
	On trade distortion and abandonment, we recognise that there are dangers and we will discuss how those can best be overcome. But all these issues, such as the potential for the abandonment of land, were a real threat in the past. We believe that we now have a more constructive structure that will enable us to address them.
	If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not attempt to go into the whole issue of entitlement; it is a complex matter. The agreement contains a special section dealing with the issue of how entitlement arises and how it can be transferred where land is sold, rented and so on. We are mindful that there was a good deal of justified concern about that. We believe that the package has addressed that concern, but it is a little complex.

Paddy Tipping: This is a significant achievement that has long been sought, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has shown remarkable negotiating skills to belie those critics who said that the Fischler reforms would never happen. The important thing now is to work through the detail for British stakeholders. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that she intends to move forward quickly with environment schemes, particularly the entry scheme and with a review of the agri-environment schemes? If we can achieve that, and achieve a simpler way into those schemes, it will help us to argue against the critics in the Chamber who will complain that other countries' ability to continue production payments until 2007 is anti-competitive. A new environment scheme must be the way forward.

Margaret Beckett: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. A couple of things strike me from what he says. First, we intend to press forward with the pilots for our entry-level scheme and with the ongoing work on agri-environment projects. My hon. Friend will not have had time to discover that there are a variety of other smallish but useful ways in which the overall settlement will be of assistance to the environment. For example, although we would have liked very much to get rid of set-aside altogether, we have obtained in the continued system the freedom to use land margins and so on—something that organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have wanted for a long time. There are lots of minor improvements along those lines.
	My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that, although we want improvements to the environment, we believe that they can go hand in hand with continued and strengthened prosperity for farmers. Critics looking at the ability to continue production subsidy payments overlook the fact that every single economic analysis, of which I am aware, of the impact of decoupling suggests that it would make farmers better off. For that reason, although this is not generally in the public domain, there is increasing pressure, interest and comment from farming organisations in other member states—including some of those who were not too enthusiastic about these proposals—who realise the potential attractiveness to them. It has been said on behalf of one member state that the farmers there had a soul above having a higher income. I will believe that when I see it.

Angela Browning: The key to removing subsidies in a so-called single market is the timetable for implementation. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) raised with the Secretary of State the question of the differential time scales to be applied by different countries. The potential downside to that is that market share will be taken by those countries in those commodities that retain subsidies over a period in which they will see off the competition. What analysis has the Secretary of State made of the impact of that process on the British market?

Margaret Beckett: With great respect to the hon. Lady, who has experience in the Department, her observations are misconceived. Only time will tell how people will use the freedoms that are now available to them, but there was very little demand for anything other than a general, broad common time scale for implementation of the package. Most member states were anticipating implementing at the same time and as early as they were free to do so. One feature of the way in which we strove to reach agreement—and one of the reasons why we got such a broad agreement—was people's willingness to allow freedom and room for manoeuvre to member states who had particular concerns, whether one thought that those concerns were necessarily as big a problem as they thought or not.
	The hon. Lady spoke about market share. When I said that her comments were not right or germane, I meant that she was overlooking the fact that farmers will continue to receive a payment; it simply will not be geared to the level of production. That means that they will be able to produce for the market. One facet of the economic analysis of decoupling is that there is a strong suspicion that, in many cases, it will lead to a higher return precisely for that reason.

John Battle: My right hon. Friend deserves our thanks and congratulations for her tireless, detailed and sustained negotiating efforts—often out of the public eye—to bring about the achievement of real reform of the CAP. She will agree that general subsidies and, perhaps more importantly, dumping massively undermine developing countries' capacity to develop their own agriculture. Are any positive, alternative and supportive proposals to help small farming businesses in Britain, the EU and developing countries part of the new package? Such a strategic approach might help to create a new CAP that would contribute to the delivery of international trade justice.

Margaret Beckett: One of the things that we hope to do—we have begun this already in the UK on the back of the Curry commission proposals—is to offer marketing advice and support, as well as more general advice and support for people working together, whether in formal co-operatives or otherwise, to maximise their market opportunities. Such help and support is valued more widely.
	My hon. Friend asked about general subsidies and dumping. He is right; this is a matter of great concern. I hope Opposition Members will not mind me saying, in all sincerity, that no matter how great their wish is to kick the Government by saying that this is not much of a deal, I hope that when they leave here they will say that the EU has moved a long way, even though they think it has not done nearly enough. It is now up to others. If we are honest, the EU has taken a much bolder stance in the negotiations than anyone would have anticipated. There is little point in doing that if it does not force others participating in the development round on to the back foot, forcing them to look again at what they do. There is perhaps not as fair a balance as there should be in some of the existing Harbinson proposals. It is time for those such as the Cairns group and the United States—they will be absolutely astonished at this package—to realise that it is up to them to look at what they do, as well. If we all move together, that will be of real benefit to the developing world.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Secretary of State, in her previous job as Leader of the House, introduced the timetabling of all Bills, so perhaps there is some rough justice in her now being subject to a procedure that allows no timetabling at all in respect of these negotiations.
	The Secretary of State said a little earlier in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) that the question of a debate was a matter for the Leader of the House. I accept that that is true, but as she rightly acknowledged, there is no way that we can know all the details of the negotiations at this early stage. I am grateful for her statement, but it is important that a further debate be had in Government time, so that she can explain matters more fully. That would also give us a chance to examine the papers and end documents relating to the negotiations, so that we can find out how our constituencies will be affected. I am thinking in particular of small farmers in my constituency, who farm some very rough terrain indeed.

Margaret Beckett: Of course I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but having been Leader of the House, as he rightly says, I am mindful of my duty not to promise a debate, and even more mindful of my duty not to promise one in Government time.

Wayne David: Like other Members, I welcome this historic achievement. It will certainly be welcomed by many others, not least by the United Nations, which suggested such reform only a few days ago in the world economic survey. However, will my right hon. Friend use her good offices to help ensure that the United States of America follows the European Union's very good example?

Margaret Beckett: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have had many interesting discussions with the Secretary for Agriculture in the US, and with the US trade representative. I look forward to having more, not least in Mexico in September. My hon. Friend is right: the entire developed world has signed up to this. We have reached agreement on the question of trying to reduce subsidies. We have agreed that we should open up access to our markets and that we should strive for a successful development round, of which the next stage is Mexico in September. Of course, even a very good deal on agriculture is not sufficient for the Doha round as a whole, but it is equally true that without a decent deal, it would have been a stumbling block.

Ann Winterton: The EU is a rigid institution through which it is very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve change. The Commission is in the driving seat, and the Council of Ministers must negotiate on what is proposed. I say genuinely to the right hon. Lady, who claims that this is a new dawn for the common agricultural policy, that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We have a temperate climate, we grow grass and therefore produce milk, and we have good cereal-growing areas in the eastern regions. Yet British agriculture is currently at the lowest possible ebb. Does she believe that it will benefit from the negotiations? Might not the opposite be true?

Margaret Beckett: I respect the hon. Lady's expertise in these matters, but I believe that this genuinely is a whole new settlement for British agriculture that will be very much to the benefit of consumers and taxpayers, as well as to agriculture practitioners. I gently remind her that that is not my view alone. The proposals that we sought to secure—such as the freedom to decouple payments from production—were urged on us by consumer organisations, by those concerned about spending and the economy, and by farming organisations in the UK and elsewhere. Moreover, they were very much the thrust of the Curry commission proposals, which were widely welcomed in this House not so very long ago. So it is not only the Government who think that this is a dramatic new opportunity for British agriculture; so do many practitioners. But it is between all of us that we have a chance to deliver on that.

Betty Williams: May I add my thanks and congratulations to my right hon. Friend for her hard work? No one in this House should underestimate the hard work that she has put in. She will be aware that the majority of farms in Wales are small farms. Can she highlight a couple of points that will persuade Welsh farmers to tell us, when we return to our constituencies tonight, that there is a welcome in the hillside and that this is a very good settlement indeed for them?

Margaret Beckett: First, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her kind remarks; I know that she appreciates just how much effort—effort on the part of many dozens of people, and down the years—goes into securing such an agreement. I take her point entirely about the structure of farming in Wales. Two points are germane to her remarks, and they will probably lead to a response from my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for devolved agriculture matters in the Welsh Assembly. We have secured the freedom for Wales to take decisions on its own about how it wishes to operate under these circumstances and rules. And because we have secured the national envelope, we have of course given ourselves freedom and resources that we can use. We work very closely with our colleagues in all three devolved bodies. They conveyed to us the flexibility that they would like to be able to use, should they need to do so, and we were able to secure it in the negotiations. So on the whole, we all feel that we have had a successful few days.

Simon Thomas: One thing that farmers in Wales and Scotland will welcome is the sweeping away of the plethora of farm payments, and the institution of a single payment. Many farmers will want to use that as a springboard for entrepreneurship and as a springboard into the market. Of course, we need to wait a little to consider the detail of the agreement, but perhaps the Secretary of State could confirm a couple of points now. On the national envelope to which she refers, will she confirm that the National Assembly for Wales will have complete freedom to run its own programmes and support mechanisms so far as the national envelope in Wales is concerned? Will she also confirm that the payments that she envisages are still farming money that will go to farming communities, not to a new plethora of project officers or to some form of rural development agency?
	Finally, in saying that things could be better for British farmers, the Secretary of State seemed to acknowledge that there could be market distortion—albeit that she thinks that it will be in our favour. Nevertheless, market distortion in a single market is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. What will she do to ensure that it does not destabilise the market for British farmers?

Margaret Beckett: I would be very surprised indeed if the arrangements operated in such a way as to destabilise the market. I do not want to be over-optimistic, but I should not be too surprised to discover that, between us all, we are able to get our approach right and to take sensible and far-sighted decisions on how we use the opportunities before us. I should not be at all surprised to see other member states make much swifter moves in the same direction than are currently being anticipated. Indeed, there is widespread suspicion that that might be so.
	The hon. Gentleman also talked about encouraging entrepreneurship, and he is absolutely right. I am told that one feature of the discussions that have taken place throughout the United Kingdom in the run-up to the negotiations has been that conversations with older farmers about the potential package tend to involve reference to the problems that such changes will create. However, discussions with younger farmers tend to turn very quickly to the opportunities that such changes will create, which I find one of the most encouraging signs.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the freedom within Wales. As I said, this is a devolved responsibility. He also asked me to confirm where and how such flexibility should be used. If he will forgive me for saying so, he seemed to ask me two somewhat contradictory questions.

Brian Jenkins: I congratulate my right hon. Friend, first, on completion of the long, frustrating negotiations and, secondly, on the degree of success that she has achieved. We may not have gone all the way, but we have gone at least part of the way. I am particularly pleased with the reduction of support prices for butter and rice, which brings them closer to world prices. However, did the sugar regime stay intact? If the Secretary of State wishes to make a statement on the website, will she ask the French Government if she can use theirs because, apparently, the Opposition buy every single word on that site.

Margaret Beckett: I take my hon. Friend's point entirely. I am grateful for his welcoming of the reduction of support prices, and I would not disguise from him or the House the fact that we would have liked to see them go deeper and further. The sugar regime was not discussed at all in the negotiations and therefore remains as it is, but that does not mean that it is set in stone for ever. We anticipate discussions on outstanding regimes such as sugar starting around September. The Commission will bring forward proposals about that time.

Tony Baldry: At present, every cow in Europe receives about $2 a day in subsidy; what will be the subsidy for each cow following the agreement? What in the deal is less trade distorting, and what will give developing countries an incentive at Cancun to sign up to the Government's agenda on new issues and to the general agreement on trade in services? Unless we can deliver on agricultural reform, there is no incentive for developing countries to sign up to the developed world's agenda at the World Trade Organisation conference. Unless we can secure a significant reduction in subsidies for such things as EU cows, there is no reason why the developing world should co-operate with the World Trade Organisation.

Margaret Beckett: First, it will soon be impossible to answer the hon. Gentleman's question about the average subsidy per cow in the European Union, because once payment is no longer linked to production, it will not be as relevant. It will be for the individual farmer to decide how to optimise market opportunities and what that means for the balance of livestock. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) raised the issue of abandonment—he asked so many questions that I fear I may not have answered that one. We are all conscious of the fact that, once payments are decoupled from production levels, the question of abandonment may arise in some areas of some member states. However, we believe that the flexibilities allowed through the national envelope will enable countries, including ourselves, to address that problem if need be.
	It is entirely right to recognise these as important issues to be set alongside other new issues at the trade talks. Discussions on matters other than agriculture are in the pipeline, and we retain the hope that agreement will be reached before Cancun, which will help to move things forward. The issues of market access, how we handle exports and so forth will come up in Cancun—and quite rightly so.

Ian Cawsey: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on the huge effort that she has put into these matters? In common with other hon. Members, I hope that this will be a new dawn for agriculture—that would be appropriate because it seemed to take until dawn to reach agreement. The move away from production subsidies is welcome, but does the agreement allow—as did the initial proposals—for subsidy on land to remain, dependent on its historic use based on a three-year time frame? If so, what steps can the Secretary of State take to assist the many farmers in my constituency who farm unsupported crops and now fear that they may be undercut by other farmers who may switch to their crop and keep an historic subsidy?

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, which I know is a source of anxiety. In fact, I can tell him that there will be an EU-wide ban on people taking such steps, so I hope that that reassures him. We had some reservations about whether it was the best method to tackle what is unquestionably a problem that needed to be addressed. It may appear to be a more minor matter for negotiation, but it is very important for those concerned.

Archy Kirkwood: The statement is important and welcome, and the Secretary of State was generous enough to acknowledge that it was a team effort. It is good to know that the constituent nations and legislatures can work so well together. I should like to ask two brief questions. First, is the 80 per cent. modulation payback guaranteed, because some voices were raised late last night that the 80 per cent. is not all that it seems to be? Is it an unqualified return figure of 80 per cent.?
	On degressivity post-2007, some people are slightly concerned that the EU Commission has a unilateral right to fix the rate and increase the degressivity. If that is not the case, it would greatly help some of the farmers in my constituency if the Secretary of State could make that clear.

Margaret Beckett: First, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Secondly, how the 80 per cent. figure was arrived at is a little complicated, but as far as I am aware, there is no substance in suggestions that that will not be the net effect and outcome of the package. Finally, on degressivity and financial discipline, agreement was reached between member states and the Commission that strong financial disciplines were necessary and that some broad guidelines should be set down. As and when such trigger mechanisms should arise, further discussions are necessary on the matter.

Michael Jabez Foster: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on achieving for the first time for a long time a level playing field—at least in the medium term—for British farmers? Some member states might use national envelopes to provide unfair competition. If it became necessary, would the Secretary of State find something for our own national envelope?

Margaret Beckett: As always, there are restrictions on what use can be made of national envelopes. Throughout the working out of the agreement, the Commission tried to ensure—it will be considered in the legal text—that people do not use the freedoms and flexibilities available to them to create an uncompetitive environment or to undermine competition across the single market.
	What often does not come through clearly enough when we get embroiled in the detail is the fact that we have secured a totally new structure for the CAP where the default option is that the support available is not coupled to production levels. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire raised the issue of abandonment. It is a matter of genuine concern for every member state—albeit slightly different concerns for each member state—but we have sought to build in enough flexibility to enable all to tackle those problems. The core of the new CAP is now different—totally different—from what it was before.

Mark Francois: I appreciate the fact that agreement was struck only in the early hours of this morning, but I want to ask the Secretary of State what plans the Government have to communicate the details of the agreement to individual farmers—ideally, in a format that would allow them fairly quickly to work out what the precise implications will be for their individual businesses. I am sure that she will appreciate that farmers, including those in my constituency, will be anxious to know what it really means for their bottom line. How do the Government intend to provide the information to enable them to work out the implications in as timely a manner as possible?

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes an important and valid point, for which I am grateful. I can tell him that a great amount of work is now going on about how precisely to do so. He might like to ensure that the farmers in his constituency realise that nothing will happen before the end of 2004 or the beginning of 2005. Some may have preferred us to go a little earlier, but at least it gives us more time to get all the substantial administrative changes in place and to get the detail right. Farmers have time to assess their own options and to take their own decisions. One objective that we hope to achieve is stability for long-term planning for farmers and for their investment.

Geraint Davies: I give my right hon. Friend my complete congratulations on the considerable progress that has been made. However, will she make clear in Mexico in September what the real prize of decoupling subsidies from production is? Apart from the benefits that will be felt by consumers, small farmers and the environment, the real prize is that countless thousands of lives in the developing world will be saved as millions of people are lifted out of abject poverty. The decoupling will also remove a breeding ground for resentment that is being exploited by the proponents of terror. Will she make it clear in Mexico that the aim is not simply to create a fairer world by removing appalling trade distortions but that it is in everyone's long-term interest that we achieve a harmonious world by securing collective success and pushing forward relentlessly on this agenda?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I wholly share his view. I attended the meeting in Indonesia in the run-up to the Johannesburg summit on sustainable development, and then that summit itself. I witnessed the wrath of people from the developing world at the way in which the developed world exploited matters such as agricultural subsidies. I am therefore under no illusion as to how important they consider the matter to be. Indeed, I will not disguise from the House that I have bored stiff my colleagues in the Agriculture Council for the past 18 months by reminding them of the experiences of those of us who attended those summits, and of their duty to the outside world. I sincerely hope that that helped us get agreement last night.

Mark Hoban: In her statement, the Secretary of State said that there was a need to get the best possible settlement for taxpayers and consumers. Can she be a bit more specific about the deal's financial implications for those two groups?

Margaret Beckett: I cannot do so off hand, and certainly not after having been up all night. However, I mentioned in my statement the price cuts that will be of some assistance to consumers. Those are the sort of implications that we and everyone else will be trying to work through, as we assess the fine detail of the package.

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the Secretary of State on reaching an historic agreement, but I remind her of the expression about being wary of Greeks bearing gifts. Will she give urgent attention to the vexed question of succession for tenant farmers? The matter is causing great anxiety to small tenant farmers in north Yorkshire and elsewhere in the country. She will be aware that a turkey factory in the Vale of York closed recently, with the loss of 300 jobs. As turkey is not a supported regime, will she raise with her EU partners the possibility that potentially fraudulent tariffs could be charged on turkey imported from Brazil, and the fact that those imports may be treated with illegal drugs? Clearly, that treatment is unacceptable, as is the fact that treated meat could be consumed by people in this country.

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question. If she would be kind enough to write to me about the matters that she has raised, I shall certainly look into them and see what can be done.

Robert Smith: I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has come to the House so soon after completing the negotiations, but I hope that she will be able to reassure farmers in my constituency on a certain point. The French are notorious in this country for standing up for their farmers at every opportunity. There is real concern that they have signed up to a deal that allows them to opt to do something different that will benefit their farmers. If a debate on the matter is not possible soon, will she at least make sure that documents are placed in the Library that show her Department's analysis of how competition will be affected by the differential arrangements? Also, she began her statement by describing how bureaucracy would be swept away, but questions from hon. Members about substitution, abandonment and unfair competition make it clear that, if she is not careful, bureaucracy will creep back in to govern the way that farmers use their land.

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman's final point is perfectly fair. We are very mindful of that danger. I hope that he will recall that I said that we had hoped to find a better way to deal with the issue of unsupported crops, for example. Even so, there is no doubt that the deal represents a massive change in terms of bureaucracy.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the record of the French Government, who are rightly proud of the way that they defend the interests of their farmers and others at Agriculture Councils and on other occasions. However, I remind the House of the policies pursued by the Government. The negotiating stance on which we sought agreement was pretty well the stance that all the relevant interests in this country wanted. They believe that it is in their interests to move to this new structure for the CAP, and I share that view.
	One of the key differences between the UK and other EU countries is that we have suffered such terrible experiences in recent years. That has forced almost all—certainly great swathes—of the farming community here to think very hard about where the future of farming lies. People in farming in this country have thought very hard about how best to transform their lives and their prosperity. They have considered the future of European farming in a way that has not happened to the same extent in other member states. I repeat what I have said before: had—heaven forfend—the negotiations been put off for a few more weeks, it is possible that there would have been a notable shift in attitude. Privately and behind the scenes, farming organisations across Europe are beginning to say, "Well, actually, maybe this is something we want to do too."

Points of Order

Anne McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have given Mr. Speaker advance notice of this point of order.
	The list of present ministerial responsibilities states that the Attorney-General, the Government's principal legal adviser, is responsible for dealing with questions of international law, EU law, and human rights. It adds that the Solicitor-General deputises for the Attorney-General in this House. I was therefore delighted to see, in the list of questions published on Tuesday 24 June, that I had secured question No. 24 in today's oral questions to the Solicitor-General. I was therefore somewhat surprised to receive a letter stating that my question had been transferred to the new Department for Constitutional Affairs, and that as a result I would receive only a written answer, and would not have the opportunity to ask a supplementary question.
	I know that Mr. Speaker, as custodian of hon. Members' interests, deprecates that sort of transfer, especially as my question was entirely in order, according to the list of ministerial responsibilities. Can we have a ruling as to why my question was transferred? I was telephoned by a clerk in the new Department, but I found it very difficult to return his call, as three clerks there share the same name. I was given the run-around by the Department—not the sort of treatment that I would expect to receive.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have considerable sympathy for the hon. Lady, given the situation in which she found herself. Of course, the creation of the new Department means that a somewhat transitional situation exists. However, the transfer of questions is a matter entirely for the Government, and not for the Chair.

Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you have received a report of an incident that occurred during questions to the Solicitor-General. The Liberal Democrat spokesman on that subject, the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), scuttled along the Opposition Front Bench immediately after the Conservative spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), had asked a question of the Solicitor-General. The Solicitor-General was attempting to reply as the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon cut right across the line of sight. Would it be possible for you to advise the Liberal Whip to give a tutorial to his colleagues on how to behave in the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On that particular incident, the result was that the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) was not called to put a question. However, in respect of general matters of behaviour in the House, I would wish that all hon. Members would take account of the courtesies. I have noticed that on too many occasions people use the House as a corridor. They are breaking the line of sight and failing to respect the position of the Chair when they enter and leave the Chamber. I hope that all the Chief Whips will take notice of these matters. The standard of behaviour in the House is a matter of great importance. We should uphold it, unless we make specific changes to the rules of courtesy that have been traditional in this place.

Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to early-day motion 1476, in the name of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) and 48 Conservative Members? It criticises Labour Members who supported early-day motion 799 on top-up fees for not voting for an identical motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition on 25 June. Among those Members criticised for not acting in line with their previous commitment is my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Everybody in the House and more widely knows that my hon. Friend has had an operation and is under doctor's orders not to attend the House, so that he should be criticised, among other people, for not being here on that occasion seems obnoxious. There is a distinction between Members who abstain because they cannot help but do so and those who abstain deliberately. I am one of those who abstained deliberately, so I am referred to in the early-day motion. I can readily and easily defend my abstaining on that occasion because the motion was tabled by the Opposition in the context of their claim that they would cut the numbers—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I get the hon. Gentleman's drift—sufficient to know that that is not a point of order for the Chair. However, he has put the matter on the record. Some slip-up may have occurred and I am sure that we all wish the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) well and a speedy return to the House.

Tim Boswell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have considerable sympathy on the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). Before I deal with that, may I say that I am grateful for his backhanded support for the point that we sought to make.
	In drawing up the list, we included all those who signed the early-day motion, but we realise that there are exceptional circumstances in relation to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). We are all very fond of the hon. Gentleman and we are sorry that he has not been in the Chamber. His name should have been excluded and, having discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), we shall take steps, on conclusion of these proceedings, to ensure that an amendment is tabled to that effect.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is equally not a point of order, but I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks.

Standards and Privileges

[Relevant document: The First Special Report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges, Session 2002–03, HC 516.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Prior to the main business, I shall make a short statement that I hope will be helpful to the House.
	Before I call the Leader of the House to move motion No. 1, "Standards and Privileges", I would like to make clear how the debate will proceed. The debate on motion No. 1 will also cover the detailed proposals set out in motions Nos. 2 and 3. At the end of the debate, the Chair will put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on all three motions. Members wishing to ask questions or raise points about the Standing Order amendments in motion No. 2 or the provisions in motion No. 3 about the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner should do so in the course of their speech on motion No. 1.

Peter Hain: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of the Eighth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cm. 5663), the Response to that Report by the House of Commons Commission (HC 422), and the Second Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (HC 403); and agrees with the recommendation in paragraph 50 of that Report that, in appropriate cases, the House should impose a penalty of withholding a Member's salary for a specified period without suspending the Member.
	The Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Wicks committee, published its eighth report on standards of conduct in the House of Commons on 21 November last year. I am sure that I speak for the House in expressing my thanks to Sir Nigel Wicks and his committee for their thoughtful, thorough and even-handed approach to this sensitive and politically-charged subject.
	The Wicks committee found that
	"standards in the House of Commons are generally high, and that the overwhelming majority of members seek to, and in practice do, uphold high standards of propriety."
	It found that
	"the fundamental structure of the current system for regulating standards of conduct in the House of Commons is sound".
	Nevertheless, it considered that the current system had fallen short of delivering confidence in certain respects. The Government accept that analysis.
	It is of the greatest importance that the conduct of Members of the House meets, and is seen to meet, the high standards expected by the Wicks committee, and also by our constituents. Lapses, however rare, are very damaging to public confidence in the House and in our parliamentary democracy. If lapses occur, and are not seen to be tackled with sufficient rigour, the effect is many times worse. Our system for regulating standards of conduct must be transparent, fair and effective.
	The Committee on Standards and Privileges published its observations on the Wicks report's recommendations with its second report on 11 February. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and his Committee for the careful consideration that they have given to the Wicks report and for their positive proposals in response to the Wicks committee's 27 recommendations.
	I will leave it to the Chairman of the Committee to explain its thinking and in what respects it has met the letter of the Wicks recommendations and in what respects, and for what reasons, it has offered some alternative way forward, meeting in a different way the spirit of the Wicks recommendations. The Government are content to accept the Committee's recommendations and I have tabled a motion to make the necessary changes to the Standing Orders to give them effect.
	We have slightly diverged from the Committee's recommendations in only one respect. In paragraph 62, the Committee noted the inter-party understanding that its Chairman be drawn from the Opposition parties and recommended that in future it should be provided for, preferably by amendment of Standing Order No. 149. The Government regard that as a strong convention and we intend that the Chairman should continue to be drawn from the Opposition parties, as both the Standards and Privileges Committee and the Wicks committee have recommended. We agree with them, but it would be unprecedented to make that a requirement of the Standing Orders.
	The Government have agreed—after some consideration, as it is unprecedented for Select Committees of the House—to the Wicks committee's recommendation that no one party should hold an overall majority on the Committee on Standards and Privileges. We accept the Standards and Privileges Committee's recommendation that that should be implemented gradually, by natural wastage, to avoid over-rapid change and loss of expertise. Subject to the agreement of the usual channels, and of the House, we intend to move towards a Committee of 10 Members, of whom five would be from the Government party and five from the Opposition parties.
	Similarly, we agree to the recommendation that Parliamentary Private Secretaries should no longer serve on the Committee on Standards and Privileges. While there has been no suggestion that those members of the Committee who have served as PPSs have acted on the Committee with anything other than independence of mind, it is important to ensure that there can be no perception that the Committee's independence is compromised by proximity to Government. As the Committee recommended, it is our intention to achieve that change gradually.
	The House of Commons Commission has considered the recommendations in the Wicks report, which apply to it: those relating to the status of the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and the terms and methods of his appointment. Its report was published on 11 February.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Leader of the House has just said that he hopes that the recommended changes to the balance of Committee membership and to PPS membership will be made gradually. I understand that, but can he tell us when he expects that process to be complete?

Peter Hain: There was no recommendation about that, but I think that it should be sooner rather than later. That would be in the spirit of the recommendations of both Committees. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees.
	The Commission accepted the Wicks committee's recommendation that the Commissioner should be appointed for a non-renewable fixed term of between five and seven years—it suggests five—and that he should continue to be appointed by the House on the recommendation of the Commission. I see that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) is in his place.
	Only one of the recommendations of the Wicks committee relates to a Government responsibility: recommendation 6 proposes that it should be an explicit requirement of the ministerial code that Members who are Ministers must co-operate with any investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, at all stages. The Government accept that recommendation. In fact, it was agreed prior to the Wicks report that an amendment should be made to the ministerial code to add an additional sentence at the end of section 1 to make it clear that Ministers must also comply at all times with the requirements that Parliament has itself laid on them as Members, including in particular the codes of conduct for their respective Houses. The amendment, which is already implemented, will be incorporated in the next published edition of the ministerial code.

Peter Bottomley: I wonder whether the Leader of the House could confirm to the House who is responsible for upholding the ministerial code. I have always assumed that it was the Prime Minister, but if it is a different answer perhaps at some stage in the debate it will be given to us.

Peter Hain: It will be the Prime Minister, obviously, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
	The first motion before us this afternoon—as well as taking note of the Wicks committee report, and of the Standards and Privileges Committee and commission responses—affirms that the House agrees with the recommendation of the Standards and Privileges Committee that, in appropriate cases, the House should impose a penalty of withholding a Member's salary for a specified period without suspending the Member.
	The Wicks committee recommended that the House should introduce additional financial penalties without suspension, as a sanction for breach of the code of conduct. The Standards and Privileges Committee supported that, recommending—in paragraph 50—that the House should have the power, on a recommendation from the Committee, to withhold salary for a specified period from a Member found to have breached the code. If legislation were required, it looked to the Government to introduce it.
	The legal advice obtained confirms that legislation is not necessary: the House has the power to withhold salary, and does so when Members are suspended. I understand that the Committee accepts that advice. Nevertheless, it is right that the House should be given the opportunity to affirm that it is content for this to be done in appropriate cases. It would seem very reasonable that the House should be able to impose this sanction—in very rare cases, I would hope—while allowing the Member to conduct his or her parliamentary business on behalf of his or her constituents.
	The second motion on the Order Paper would make a number of changes to Standing Order No. 149 (Committee on Standards and Privileges) and to Standing Order No. 150 (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards). These are to give effect to recommendations of the Standards and Privileges Committee and of the commission. An explanatory memorandum has been made available in the Vote Office to explain the effects of this somewhat complex motion, and how it relates to the Committee's and the Commission's recommendations.
	The amendment to Standing Order No. 149 makes explicit the S and P Committtee's power to appoint legal advisers, in the light of the Wicks committee recommendation that it should appoint an outside legal adviser to assist it with its work on a regular basis. In respect of Standing Order No. 150, the new paragraph (2A) implements a recommendation of the Wicks committee that the Commissioner's role in the rectification procedure should be set out clearly.
	The new paragraphs (2B) to (2G) implement the proposal by the Standards and Privileges Committee for an investigatory panel. New paragraph (2H) requires the Commissioner to make an annual report to the House, as recommended by the Wicks committee. I understand that the Commissioner plans to make his first annual report shortly.
	The revised paragraph (3) strengthens the Commissioner's independence by setting out more specifically than in the existing paragraph the circumstances in which he may be dismissed, and the procedure that is to be followed to do so. There has been concern about the Commissioner's security of tenure and this has been seen as compromising his independence. The amendment seeks to allay that concern, while allowing a means of dismissal in case the Commissioner were to become unfit or unable to hold office.

Patrick McLoughlin: I have a slight concern about this and I should like to express it and ask the Leader of the House whether he may be going a bit too far here. At the moment, the only way that the Commissioner can be fired or dismissed is on a motion of the whole House. A similar motion would be required to get rid of, let us say, the Speaker of the House of Commons, should the House so wish to do. The proposals would make it much tougher to bring about the dismissal of the Commissioner. Is the Leader of the House really sure that that kind of toughening up is necessary?

Peter Hain: I think so, but this is really a matter on which the House should make a judgment. It would still be possible for the Commissioner to be removed, as the hon. Gentleman says, by resolution of the House, but only if there were clear and transparent grounds for concluding that the Commissioner was unfit to hold his office or unable to carry out his functions. I remind the House of the public's concern about the Commissioner's security of tenure—it is an important point—and of the need not only to ensure but to demonstrate his independence, particularly given events a little while ago.

Peter Bottomley: Is it not right that the fuller answer to my hon. Friend is that it is tougher, in that a majority of the Standards and Privileges Committee would be required to pass a motion, and only after that could the resolution be considered by the House?

Peter Hain: Indeed; I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
	The third motion puts in place the proposals of the House of Commons Commission on the terms of appointment of future Parliamentary Commissioners for Standards and, as the commission recommended, modifies the basis of the appointment of the current Commissioner so as to bring it in line with these.
	Paragraph (a) provides for all future appointments to be for a fixed term of five years, and to be non-renewable. Paragraph (b) provides for the appointment of the present Commissioner, which currently runs for three years from 13 February 2002 and is renewable, to run for five years from the date of this debate—that is, to 25 June 2008—and to be non-renewable. The Wicks committee had recommended that future appointments should be for a non-renewable fixed term, set by the House, of between five and seven years. The commission feels that five years strikes a reasonable balance between giving the Commissioner the opportunity to establish and develop his or her role, and allowing for a fresh approach from time to time.
	The proposals to improve the Commissioner's security of tenure and to make the appointment for a fixed term and non-renewable, comprise a package that is designed to reinforce both the reality and the public perception of the Commissioner's independence.
	I understand that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Sir Philip Mawer, has agreed to the proposed modifications of his terms and conditions of employment and is willing to serve the House for a further five years, and I am most grateful to him for that commitment. I take the opportunity to acknowledge the wisdom, assiduity and independence of mind that Sir Philip has demonstrated in his service to date.
	The Wicks committee has taken the view that there should be primary legislation to define the post of Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards as an office-holder, appointed and paid for, but not employed by, the House. The Government are not convinced that there is a need to introduce legislation in this area—we believe that the measures that it is hoped that the House will agree today should be sufficient to ensure the independence of the Commissioner—but of course we remain willing to consider the case for legislation, should a clear need emerge.
	I take the opportunity, in concluding, to apologise to the House for the fact that I must depart early from the debate—I should stress, to attend to my duties as Leader of the House.

Eric Forth: Oh good.

Peter Hain: I said that just for the right hon. Gentleman's benefit. However, my very capable deputy, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), will be here to wind up the debate, and if it continues for a long period I shall return to House. I commend the three motions to the House.

George Young: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate and to commend the report of my Committee, the Standards and Privileges Committee, to the House. I begin by thanking the Leader of the House for his kind words about the work of my Committee and his constructive response to the recommendations that we have made.
	Our business this afternoon has its roots in the report of the Wicks committee, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which was published last November. This is actually the third occasion on which that Committee has reported on our standards, and the particular trigger this time was the circumstances, towards the end of 2001, that surrounded the decision to hold an open competition to fill the post of Commissioner, rather than automatically reappoint the present Commissioner's predecessor. I quite understand that that warranted a fresh look at our procedures.
	As the Leader of the House said, we are all grateful to the Wicks committee for its continuing interest in the House's arrangements for maintaining standards. It is right that our system of regulation is open to critical, independent and professional review, and that can only help enhance public confidence in our arrangements. It is good that Sir Nigel Wicks was able to write in his covering letter to the Prime Minister that
	"following the publication of the First Report in 1995, real progress has been made in establishing and enforcing high standards of conduct".
	However, we must never be complacent, and I agree wholeheartedly with what Sir Nigel said when he said that one or two serious cases of misconduct can lead to disproportionate loss of public confidence, not only in individual Members but in the House of Commons as an institution. Such a loss of confidence is in the interests of none of us here today; indeed, it damages the democratic process.
	Therefore both the Commissioner and my Committee are placing an increased emphasis on information and training, to help hon. Members to comply with the rules, thus minimising the scope for damaging breaches. We have also suggested changes to make some of the rules relating to allowances more explicit and more effective.
	The thrust of the eighth report is threefold: first, to strengthen the independence of the Commissioner; secondly, to enhance the perceived neutrality of my Committee; and, thirdly, to improve and clarify the regulatory process. The Wicks committee's stated aim was to deliver public confidence in the House, while carrying the confidence of the House itself. To do that, the committee made 27 recommendations, all but one of them addressed to the House—the last one being addressed to the Government, to which the Leader of the House has referred. I endorse the preference of the Wicks committee for implementation through internal mechanisms of the House, such as Standing Orders, rather than through legislation.
	In its own report, my Committee has given careful consideration to each of the recommendations that the Wicks committee addressed to the House. As I said a moment ago, we share the same aims and objectives, so it is not surprising that we therefore recommend acceptance of the substance of the vast majority of the Wicks committee recommendations. Where we have felt unable to follow the precise terms of its recommendations, we have, wherever possible, proposed alternatives to achieve the same objectives, but in a way that we think does so more effectively. Wicks's overall assessment of the proposal that my Committee has made in its report is that it will be
	"a significant improvement on the current arrangements".
	The House will be grateful for that endorsement.
	The Wicks committee report was published in the context of an ongoing programme, with the Commissioner and the Committee working in tandem. Following a revision of the code and the guide, approved by the House in May last year, a completely new register was published in December 2002, with a much sharper focus than in the past and reflecting the more vigorous registration requirements to which the House had agreed. The Commissioner expects to initiate a more comprehensive review of the code later this year, the outcome of which will be considered by the committee.
	The Commissioner has also, with the Committee's encouragement and approval, published procedural guidance for Members and other guidance, such as a comprehensive media strategy, which is to be followed, later this summer, by guidance on how frivolous or vexatious complaints will be handled. Pending the review of the code, a number of the Wicks recommendations have been given effect through such practice notes. Likewise, we have given effect to other recommendations, which may be formalised when the guide to the rules is next revised—probably early in the next Parliament, given that it is only a year since the House approved the last major revision.
	One of the Wicks committee's key recommendations, which is designed to improve the fairness with which Members are investigated, is the proposed establishment of an investigatory panel. That proposal was designed to deal with cases—they are expected to arise only infrequently—that in the opinion of my Committee met two criteria: first, proof of the complaint would be likely to lead to the imposition of a serious penalty on the Member; and, secondly, that there appeared to be significant contested areas of fact that would not be properly decided unless the Member was given the opportunity to call witnesses and/or cross-examine other witnesses.
	My Committee was sympathetic to the aims of that recommendation, but had a number of concerns about the details, not least that it left the Commissioner with neither an obvious role in establishing the facts, nor an opportunity to express an opinion on whether they point to a breach of the code. We have therefore proposed an alternative approach for those circumstances, which we hope are rare, where the Commissioner would sit with two assessors—one legally qualified, the other a Member of the House nominated by the Speaker. However, the Commissioner would retain sole responsibility for reporting the facts to the Committee and for expressing an opinion on whether the code had been breached. The proposed new Standing Order paragraphs (2B) to (2H) would give effect to that.
	We believe that that approach will meet the Wicks committee's objectives, while maintaining the centrality of the Commissioner's role in investigating complaints. As I said earlier, those arrangements are designed to be used only in the most serious and most difficult cases, and it remains the intention of both the Committee and the Commissioner that our existing procedures should be used to handle the vast majority of cases.
	Another difference of view between my Committee and the Wicks committee is over taking evidence in public. My Committee understands the arguments for taking evidence in public, as is indeed the norm for most Select Committees. However, it considers that there are compelling practical arguments, to which we refer in paragraphs 44 to 47 of the annexe to our report, against taking evidence in public in standards cases. So we have no plan to change our present practice in that respect, but we shall, of course, continue our present practice with regard to publishing our reports of the evidence that we have taken, whether in public or in private.
	The Wicks committee once again raised the issue of whether the House should introduce financial penalties, without suspension, as a sanction for breaching the code. As the Leader of the House has just said, to do so would give the House greater flexibility over the range of penalties that it could impose, and a financial penalty could be imposed on a Member without depriving his or her constituents of their representation in the House—a consequence of suspension about which concern has been expressed in the past.
	My Committee has recommended that the House should have an additional power to impose on a Member who is found to have breached the code a specific penalty of withholding salary for a specified period. As the Leader of the House said, when we published our report, it was unclear whether legislation was needed. I understand it is not needed. Indeed, Standing Order No. 45A provides the framework for withholding the salaries of suspended Members. I hope that the House will agree that that will be a useful addition to its armoury in dealing with breaches of the code.
	The Wicks committee made a number of proposals for change in the composition of the Committee, designed, in its view, to strengthen public perceptions of its independence. The effect of the proposed changes would be to prevent any party holding an overall majority on the Committee, to make it a requirement that the Chairman be drawn from the Opposition parties and to exclude Parliamentary Private Secretaries from membership.
	I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Committee for the way it works. My firm view is that, when Members enter Committee Room 13, they leave behind in the Committee Corridor their party affiliations. A fly on the wall would find it impossible to deduce party affiliations from the contributions that Members make. It is a matter of considerable pride to me that our key decisions are always unanimous.
	I should like to pay a particular tribute to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) for the distinguished contribution that he has made to our work. His recent departure, to concentrate on his valuable work as Chairman of the Liaison Committee and as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, was a serious loss to my Committee, the impact of which has been, I am pleased to say, significantly offset by the welcome appointment of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) in his place. I understand that we may also lose the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt), one of the Committee's longest serving members. Again, I thank him for his significant contribution to our work. I wish him well in his new post as PPS to a Secretary of State.
	Despite our confidence that the present arrangements work well, my colleagues and I have none the less concluded that, in the interests of public perception of the Committee's independence, the House should go along with those three recommendations from the Wicks committee. In this area, perception is almost as strong as reality. I am grateful to the Government for clearly endorsing them today, as some aspects break new ground, particularly that relating to party balance. Although they are not being enshrined in the Standing Orders on this occasion, I hope that, with experience of their operation, the Government may feel able to do so on a future occasion.
	The Wicks committee also made a number of recommendations designed to strengthen the position of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the current Commissioner, Sir Philip Mawer, for the way in which he carries out his duties. He came to the task in difficult circumstances, at a time when confidence in our self-regulatory arrangements had been dented by the circumstances surrounding the departure of his predecessor. He has worked hard both to re-establish confidence and, with the Committee, to build a fresh approach to standards enforcement that places a significantly greater emphasis on education and prevention. His first annual report is expected to be made to the House shortly, and it will put into the public domain more information about the work of his office than ever before. I hope that that will also enhance the accountability, both to the House and to the public, for his stewardship of his role.
	The proposals regarding the Commissioner's security of tenure, terms and period of office and the resourcing of his office are principally matters for the House of Commons Commission, rather than for my Committee—and I see three House of Commons Commissioners in the Chamber this afternoon. We are grateful to the House of Commons Commission for its willingness to provide whatever resources are needed to enable the Commissioner to do his job properly, and we support the proposals on security of tenure and on the terms and conditions of the Commissioner's appointment that will be put to the House shortly.
	In recent months, some sections of the press have commented on an apparent lack of activity on the part of the Committee. To our critics, that is evidence that the system is ineffective. I think that fewer reports of Members behaving badly is good news rather than bad news. Indeed, I hope that the approach of both the Commission and the Committee of putting a greater emphasis on education and prevention will, over time, result in fewer Members finding themselves in breach of the code and will promote yet higher standards of conduct. We will, however, continue to seek to deal firmly with cases of proven breaches of the rules.
	I believe that our system of self-regulation is effective in ensuring that high standards of conduct are the norm in the House and that those who fail to meet them are punished appropriately. The Wicks committee concluded that standards are generally high and that the overwhelming majority of Members seek to, and, in practice, do uphold standards of propriety. The Committee and the Commissioner are seeking to ensure through enhanced openness about the procedures, while maintaining confidentiality in the handling of individual cases, that public confidence in our arrangements is enhanced. The changes that the House is being invited to make today, on the recommendations of my Committee, should also act to enhance public confidence. I commend them and my Committee's report to the House.

Eric Forth: I suppose that I should start by making a kind of declaration of interest. I was a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee in the previous Parliament, and I am currently a member of the House of Commons Commission. I therefore have a direct interest in and relevance to today's proceedings. I hope that if my comments are brief—unusually brief by my standards, some might say—that will in no way indicate a lack of interest on my part or a lack of importance attached to the issues. On this occasion, happily, I am in a position to endorse not only what the Leader of the House said but what my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee said. It is obvious from their comments that a lot of thought has been put into this matter on behalf of the House by the Government and in particular by the Committee, and I am more than happy, on behalf of Her Majesty's official Opposition, to endorse what has already been said.
	I want to quote from the second report of the Standards and Privileges Committee, which sums up the dilemma that faced Members of the House following the Wicks committee report. Paragraph 5 on page 6 states:
	"The Wicks Committee rightly recognises that the system for regulating standards of conduct must be consistent with constitutional principles, including the need to ensure that Parliament remains free to regulate its own affairs without executive or judicial interference. This collection of related rights and immunities is essential if Parliament is to be able effectively to discharge its responsibilities as the nation's legislature on behalf of the people; the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege asserted as 'axiomatic' the inclusion of the responsibility of each House for disciplining its own members."
	That illustrates rather well the assertion and the principle in which I firmly believe—because Members of this House are individually accountable to their electorates, and because the House as a whole is therefore very much accountable to voters, there is always an ultimate check and sanction on Members way above anything that any committee can bring to bear. I hope that that is very much borne in mind by those who consider what is said in the House today and the approach that we take. Of course it is right that we constantly examine and re-examine our mechanisms to satisfy ourselves that they work properly, and of course it is right, as we are doing today, that we respond to recommendations such as those that Wicks brought forward. Equally, it is right that we assert ultimately what is set out so eloquently and succinctly in that paragraph—it is for us to judge, knowing that in the end we are accountable to our voters, as few others are, whether they be on elevated committees or even, dare I say it, in the press. I hope that we are able to make that important distinction.
	Having said that, I would like to welcome very much the Government's response to some of the quite tricky recommendations that emerged both from Wicks and from my right hon. Friend's Committee. I pay tribute to the Leader of the House and to the Government for accepting some of those recommendations, not least those regarding the composition of the Committee, which in its own way is groundbreaking, and the Leader of the House's undertaking about the chairmanship of the Committee. It is appropriate in that regard to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for demonstrating that having a Committee of the House chaired by a distinguished member of the Opposition is not only something that can be made to work but made to work very satisfactorily, and can add to the perception of the effectiveness, impartiality and independence of the Committee. In addition, in relation to the no doubt painful recommendations about the role of Parliamentary Private Secretaries in the Committee, I can attest to the fact that, as my right hon. Friend said, the way in which the Standards and Privileges Committee has worked—certainly in the previous Parliament, and I have no reason to doubt that the same has been the case in this—has been consensual. There has been no evidence that I ever saw of partiality by members of the Committee. Nevertheless, on this occasion, we are right to take the view that perception, in this area perhaps above all others, is of vital importance, and that we take such steps as are seen to be necessary to reassure members of the public that this Committee, with the vital role that it plays in our business, is above and beyond any reproach, which I believe that it is and will continue to be.
	All in all, while the Wicks committee did invaluable work, and it has rightly caused us to re-examine our position and our procedures in this matter, we have taken a responsible and robust view of what it said. What has been recommended and what the Government have said in response will bear examination and will ultimately enhance the reputation of the House. There is some evidence that that is already happening and, without rehearsing all the details again, what my right hon. Friend said is significant in that the number of complaints—let us remember that they are mainly from the public—has been dramatically reduced over the past year or two, which I hope indicates that matters in this important area are improving and will continue to improve, supported by the mechanisms that these resolutions today will put in place. I warmly recommend them to the House. I support them and I hope that the House will do so too.

Paul Tyler: I wish not only to reiterate in precise terms what the shadow Leader of the House said about our accountability to the electorate, which it is important to rehearse, but to say how disappointed I am that the House is not full to hear him not only congratulate the Government but thank them. When the House was fuller, earlier in the day, I am sure that he would have found a different reaction. It is an almost unique occasion—I am sure that we should all relish this moment—and we will make sure that it is given prominence in future.
	In common with several other Members present today, I gave evidence to the Wicks committee. I certainly do not want to rehearse all the issues that the committee considered, but I would like to say, as the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee has said, what a thorough job it did on our behalf. There is value in someone from outside the parliamentary building and the ethos of this place looking at our procedures and testing them against other criteria. I also endorse the points that the Chairman of the Committee made at the end of his speech with which I agree entirely.
	This area raises important issues, which the Wicks committee and the subsequent discussions in the Committee and the Commission have underlined. Is the system for self-regulation of the House by the House sufficiently robust? Does it provide sufficient reassurance to the electorate to enhance and restore confidence in parliamentary integrity? Is it sufficiently even-handed to provide natural justice for those alleged to have infringed the code of conduct while also ensuring that justice is done and seen to be done?
	I pay tribute to both the Committee and the Commissioner. There has been a steady and substantial improvement on all those counts in recent months, both in performance and perception. That is largely due to the fact that we had a fresh approach by new people, including, of course, the new Chairman and the new Commissioner. If this debate had taken place 18 months ago, it would have been extremely controversial. I guess that not only would the Galleries have been full but the House would have been full. The improvements that have taken place over that period are, if I may put it this way, a tribute to the new regime. It can also be said that there is much to commend in the guide and code improvements of 2002.
	That does not mean that there might not be dangers in the future. Several witnesses drew it to the attention of the Wicks committee that the tit-for-tat period in the run-up to the general election was a real problem. Often spurious accusations against Members were made by Members of other parties, which were carefully timed to seek publicity for the complaint, in the knowledge that they would take time to feed through the system and, therefore, the result—probably, if not always, clearance and dismissal—would come after polling day. That affected hon. Members of all parties and did no credit to the House of Commons.

David Davis: Recommendation 7 of the Wicks report says:
	"The Guide to the Rules should be amended to set out clearly the means by which the Committee on Standards and Privileges would deal with frivolous or vexatious complaints."
	Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should take a much sterner line on vexatious complaints and introduce penalties for those who undertake such complaints? If he is, I agree with him.

Paul Tyler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am glad to find support for the view in the House and I suspect that it might be shared among all parties.
	I want to give a specific example, and I hope that the Chairman of the Committee and the Commissioner will take it seriously. I am aware of a Member against whom a set of accusations was made, some of which were endorsed by a Member of another party who had designs on nomination to the constituency that the first Member represents. It took more than six months to clear the complaints, so an enormous amount of work was hanging over that Member during the whole process and he was distracted from his duties in the House. Such a situation could be damaging to a Member's work in certain circumstances. I understand that the Commissioner has cleared the Member of all the complaints, with his usual excellent care and consideration, but the process took six months.
	I entirely endorse the point made by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) that, in such circumstances, it should be open to the Commissioner to recommend to the Committee that action be taken. That action should be known to the House, and perhaps publicised more widely so that we would discourage such complaints because Members of all parties may suffer. The situation is especially likely in the run-up to a general election, so now is the time to take action. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support and I hope that he was speaking on behalf of his party because that might be substantially helpful as we discuss the matter.
	My colleagues and I entirely agree with the suggestion in the first motion that the Committee should be able to recommend a salary penalty. We accept the Leader of the House's argument that other concerns such as the requirement for an Opposition Member to chair the Committee could be dealt with more appropriately in the way suggested rather than being a Standing Order requirement, as at the moment. We, like other hon. Members, note the Government's commitment that that would be their "firm intention"—I think that that was the Leader of the House's expression.
	With regard to the third motion, I understand the Leader of the House's point that at this stage it is difficult to know whether it is necessary to make changes to the Commissioner's role by statute. I agree with him because, for goodness' sake, we should avoid bringing such measures through the House with the full legislative panoply. I am sure that he appreciates that time is precious.
	I think that all the other matters in the third motion reflect the Commission's views. Unlike other participants in the debate, I have no official status because I am a member of neither the Commission nor the Committee. Thank goodness for that, because it is the last thing that I would want—I am glad that the matter is in the capable hands of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). The Commission has agreed to recommendations 20, 21, 22 and 24 of the Wicks committee.
	While addressing the second motion, I wish to follow the sequence of the excellent explanatory memorandum. I note that the Leader of the House quoted from it extenso—if that is the right word—and rightly so, because the House's explanatory memoranda are so good that they are generally much better than the motions, let alone the Bills.

Peter Luff: In extenso.

Paul Tyler: In extenso. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his correction.
	All the measures make good sense, including the amendments to Standing Orders Nos. 149 and 150. I was slightly worried when it sounded like the Leader of the House and the Chairman of the Committee were giving way somewhat on the need for independent legal advice. I noted that one of the Wicks committee's key conclusions was:
	"to deliver public confidence now, the post of Commissioner alone is an insufficient representation of an independent or external element in the House's system of regulation."
	I do not think that we have heard the last of that. Although the move on the investigative sub-committee procedures is perfectly acceptable, we might need to return to the issue if there is insufficient perception of independence.
	I have no problem with paragraphs (2B), (2C) and (2D) of the motion because they are perfectly sensible. Paragraphs (2E), (2F) and (2G) also hang together and follow through perfectly well. Paragraph (2H) will just provide that we should receive an annual report.
	My only worry is a matter to which the Leader of the House referred that should nevertheless be given greater prominence at this time on a Thursday afternoon: the ministerial code. I hope that it will be taken seriously within government. I recall raising the issue during a debate on a specific case. I welcome the Leader of the House's assurance that the ministerial code will shortly be published again in its revised form. The full co-operation of Members of the Government with the official process of the House and a system of full disclosure must be axiomatic and at the centre of things. The Leader of the House has given us an assurance, and we heard from the reply to the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) that the Prime Minister will be the policeman of the process. However, he—or she—will be an interested party, so I would want to ensure that the Committee is entirely happy with the arrangement. It might wish to return to the matter if there is a problem.
	The ministerial code is something of a shadowy document and might not be quite as sufficient as the impression that has been given. There is an important question about special advisers and political advisers who report to Ministers, although that is a subject for another day's debate. I hope that Leader of the House's personal verbal reassurance this afternoon will be reiterated by the Prime Minister in public, together with a published new document that takes full account of the recommendations.

Peter Bottomley: I served on the Standards and Privileges Committee and left after the appointment of Sir Philip Mawer. I made it plain that that was in no sense a protest against him. It was the result of what I regarded as deficiencies in the treatment by the House of the former Commissioner, Elizabeth Filkin. Sir Philip is considering an issue in relation to me. I do not want to hide the fact that I might be the subject of a formal complaint, which may get reported at some stage, but I do not want to go into details because it might be prejudicial one way or the other.
	Two parts of the way in which we got into this are worth recalling. The eighth report by the Wicks committee was a result of Sir Nigel's response to a letter I sent saying that, in my view, there was unhappiness in the House. The response by the Government and the Standards and Privileges Committee to the report by the Wicks committee is good.
	In particular, I support the adaptation of the Wicks recommendation that the Commissioner, with two assessors, should be able to take forward significant disputes of fact. I am less happy about the cross-questioning of witnesses, in part because my experience started with the al-Fayed and Hamilton case. If the two of them had had the chance of knocking spots off each other, there would have been more new designs than Tate Modern could put on the side of a river cruiser. Experience will show how often that procedure is used and what the results will be.
	The second genesis of the arrangements is that we now have a system under which complaints can be considered rather than leaving them up to the interests of the press. I pay tribute to the role of the press in sucking up all the dirt and trying to decide which bits matter, but on the whole it is not the best way of settling matters of fact. The existence of the role of the Commissioner and the way in which the job has been fulfilled by Sir Gordon Downey, Elizabeth Filkin and Sir Philip Mawer is a tribute to each holder of that post. I observe that two of the holders have been knighted; the reason for the middle holder of the post not being knighted cannot simply be that she is not a man. Her career was interrupted by the way we treated her and, given her public service, I commend, in public and in private, that the Prime Minister's office find a way of remedying what I regard as an extra deficiency.
	If I look back over my experience, I can come up with two issues that might have gone to a Commissioner. One, which did not receive a great deal of publicity, was when someone thought that our late colleague, Jocelyn Cadbury, had been involved in nefarious dealings with drugs, and that so had I. He was dead; I was not. About half the British press camped outside a motel in Basingstoke, waiting for me to come along with the loot to exchange for illegal substances. When eventually it turned out that some juvenile had managed to put together a couple of links in "Who's Who" and had lived very nicely in the motel at the expense of a number of television companies and newspaper groups, I wondered what would have happened had that been a proper accusation rather than a "Ha, ha, ha. Look how the media have been misled by a junior fraudster."
	There are difficulties. If a complaint is made against a Member of Parliament, it puts us in the position of having to disprove something. That is why I commend our present procedures, which look into questions of fact and consider whether there is sufficient evidence, on the face of it, to justify an investigation by the Commissioner and to put a Member of Parliament to the inconvenience of responding to questions.

Tony McWalter: Does the hon. Gentleman think that we could change the titles of the reports? The list of titles at the back of the Standards and Privileges Committee report acts to re-echo the accusations that were made. Those accusations were sometimes not proven or even dismissed, yet named individuals are still included in the titles. Once a matter has been dealt with, it might be helpful to refer to those reports without referring to the Member of Parliament by name.

Peter Bottomley: That is a generous thought. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee and the Commissioner can consider that.
	I have dealt with the need for the Commissioner to determine whether there is a degree of fact, or apparent fact, before a formal investigation can start. I commend that approach to the media.
	The second example from my past was when I took up the case of a black social worker in my constituency who suffered from the actions of a branch union official, who threw him out of the union without due process. After a year and a half, the union determined the case in the social worker's favour, so my representations led to justice. However, because of that union official, whom I consider a bad person, and a sad local councillor—I am going back some years—many parts of the media took the view that allegations that I had taken children from a home in my constituency to parties in Brighton were worth investigation. At the last moment, that led to interviews with me and to a newspaper report, which in effect said, "Minister in sex case row". I was a Minister; there was no sex case; there was no row.
	On advice from someone with much experience in journalism, I said in simple terms: "It is not true. I did not do it. I shall sue." I then checked that the media understood that all those words had one syllable and were therefore capable of comprehension. Sadly, the thing had been printed and it led to lawyers earning a fair amount of money, although it was resolved before court.
	That kind of accusation falls between criminal activity, which the Commissioner and Wicks systems do not look into, and inappropriate behaviour by a Member of Parliament. At times, there will be pressure to discover whether we are performing our constituency duties in a proper way. I would probably be failed on that quite often but, on other issues, many of us do not have a great deal to fear if we respond appropriately to questions that the Commissioner may ask when deciding whether a complaint needs to be looked into.
	The eighth report of the Wicks committee was necessary. If I wrote such a report, I would not recommend the convention that the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee should be a member of the Opposition. Robert Sheldon's chairmanship of the Committee illustrates that point. However, if there is a general view that a non-Government Member should chair the Committee, so be it. I accept what the Leader of the House said about it not being necessary to write that into Standing Orders—it will be fine if Members abide by the convention.
	We can put behind us issues arising from the way in which the second Commissioner was treated, although they will be recorded in the history books. There are a number of unexplained things, and there is a delicacy in the report by the House of Commons Commission that I will not embarrass Members by pointing out. The Commission's words may be literally true, but the word "not" could be inserted and they would still be true.
	Together, the House, the Commissioner, the House of Commons Commission and the Wicks Committee have managed further to correct things that have already improved the situation, and I, too, commend the proposals before the House this afternoon.

Phil Woolas: This has been an interesting, constructive and important debate.
	I wish to start by commending two Members who cannot be with us today. My opposite number, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), cannot be with us because of illness. I spoke to him yesterday about the debate, and I hope that he recovers and is back with us as soon as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) was commended in one of the reports for his ability to divorce his two roles—as a member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges and as a parliamentary private secretary. He has reinforced that commendation by giving his apologies for not attending today's debate—he thought that it would be inappropriate for him to do so. I am pleased, as I know all members of the Committee are, that there was no implication whatsoever that his role was why the decision on dual function, which the Government support, was made. As a former Whip, I can testify to my hon. Friend's independence during the period in which he served on the Committee.
	I am grateful to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) for explaining the Committee's views. As ever, he dealt with those matters with clarity and even-handedness. When preparing for this debate with the excellent support, as I have already said, of departmental officials, I discovered that the right hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament for many more years than I have been out of school, so it is with humility that I attempt to uphold the standards of the House of Commons in the role that I have been given.
	May I comment on the intended convention that an Opposition Member should chair the Committee? The convention already works in the Public Accounts Committee, and the proposals in the report will be strengthened by the commitment of Members on both sides of the House to even-handed membership of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, with members drawn from all the main parties.

Peter Bottomley: I hope that the convention will not be applied too rigorously so that if for some reason the Chairman cannot attend, a Government Member cannot chair the meeting.

Phil Woolas: I think that everybody would endorse that—I certainly would. I referred to the experience of the current Chairman; the previous Chairman was a Member of Parliament before I was born and, as my neighbour in Oldham, often referred to me as "the young lad". As has already been said, the impartiality of Lord Sheldon's chairmanship was never questioned. Perhaps we should all hope that in future the political affiliation of the Chair will not matter, and that if the convention and the Committee work as we hope, we will not have to worry about that.
	Everybody is aware of the need for impartiality and the need to be seen to be impartial. That is part of the Committee's remit. One of the strengths of the Committee and of the Wicks report was that they looked outwards from this place as much as inwards in order to achieve one of their main tasks—to ensure public confidence in the proceedings of the House.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood), who represents the Commission, for his comments. It is useful for all concerned that there is unanimity from that source as well. All hon. Members will be grateful for that.
	The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) raised the matter of the tenure of the Commissioner. I make clear the Government's view that there should be no implied criticism of the previous Commissioner, whose devotion to public service is recognised. We have noted the comments that have been made. I emphasise that the restriction of the tenure to one term of office of five years, which is the term that the Commission recommended, ensures the perception of impartiality and overcomes the possible accusation—not that members of the press would imply such a thing—that favour might be curried in the House. That, of course, is not the case.
	Like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I thank the shadow Leader of the House. We are attempting to move forward with consensus. We have not closed our minds to the argument for legislation, which the Wicks committee recommended, but we believe that it is not necessary. I put on record the fact that we have an open mind about that.
	The Government believe that the Committee on Standards and Privileges and the Commission have recommended a sensible way forward and responded positively to the recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I ask the House to support the motion and the motions that follow.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of the Eighth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cm. 5663), the Response to that Report by the House of Commons Commission (HC 422), and the Second Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (HC 403); and agrees with the recommendation in paragraph 50 of that Report that, in appropriate cases, the House should impose a penalty of withholding a Member's salary for a specified period without suspending the Member.

STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES

Ordered,
	That—
	(1) Standing Order No. 149 (Committee on Standards and Privileges) be amended in line 39, after second 'time', by inserting ', to appoint legal advisers'; and
	(2) Standing Order No. 150 (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) be amended as follows:
	(a) line 33, at end add 'unless the provisions of paragraph (2A) apply.
	(2A) No report shall be made by the Commissioner if, in any case where the Member concerned has agreed that he has failed to register or declare an interest, it is the Commissioner's opinion that the interest involved is minor, or the failure was inadvertent, and the Member concerned has taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required within any procedure approved by the Committee for this purpose.
	(2B) The Commissioner may at any time in the course of investigating a complaint, and if so requested by the Committee on Standards and Privileges shall, appoint an Investigatory Panel to assist him in establishing the facts relevant to the investigation.
	(2C) An Investigatory Panel shall—
	(a) consist of the Commissioner, who shall be Chairman of the Panel, and two assessors, one of whom shall be a legally qualified person appointed by the Commissioner and the other shall be a Member, who shall not be a member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, appointed by the Speaker; and
	(b) meet in private.
	(2D) The Commissioner—
	(a) shall determine the procedures of the Panel, subject to the provisions of this Order; and
	(b) may appoint counsel for the purpose of assisting the Panel.
	(2E) Any report that the Commissioner may have made to the Committee on Standards and Privileges in relation to the complaint before the appointment of the Panel shall be made available to the Panel by the Committee.
	(2F) Any Member who is the subject of the complaint under investigation shall, if he so requests, be heard by the Panel; may call witnesses; and may examine other witnesses.
	(2G) When the Panel has completed its proceedings—
	(a) the Commissioner shall report as in paragraph (2)(e);
	(b) the legal assessor shall report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges his opinion as to the extent to which its proceedings have been consistent with the principles of natural justice; and
	(c) the Member assessor may report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges his opinion as to the extent to which its proceedings have had regard to the customs and practice of the House and its Members.
	(2H) The Commissioner shall report each year to the House on the exercise by him of his functions.'.
	(b) line 34, leave out paragraph (3) and add—
	'(3) The Commissioner may be dismissed only following a resolution of the House, moved for by a Member of the House of Commons Commission, after the Committee on Standards and Privileges has reported to the House that it is satisfied that the Commissioner is unfit to hold his office or unable to carry out his functions; and any such report shall include a statement of the Committee's reasons for its conclusion.'—[Mr. Woolas.]

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR STANDARDS

Resolved,
	That this House agrees with the proposals of the House of Commons Commission in paragraphs 8 to 10 of its response to the Eighth Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (HC 422), that—
	(a) any future appointment to the office of Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards shall be for a period of five years, and shall not be renewable; and
	(b) notwithstanding the Resolution of the House of 13th February 2002, the appointment of the current Commissioner shall expire on 25th June 2008, and shall not be renewable.—[Mr. Woolas.]

QUADRATIC EQUATIONS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Tony McWalter: The subject of my debate may ensure that hon. Members will not want to stay for the whole of it, but I dedicate the debate to Sir Nicolas Bevan, who has been the Speaker's Secretary for 10 years. This is the last formal proceeding in the House before he leaves that position. I wanted to pay tribute to him and say that many hon. Members have valued greatly the service that he has given to the House. I know that he will be much missed.

Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will have the support of everyone in the House in the tribute that he has paid to the Speaker's Secretary. He might also want to know that the Speaker's Secretary was a classicist and therefore rather better at Latin and Greek than he necessarily was at quadratic equations.

Tony McWalter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and his good wishes to Sir Nicolas. I take the liberty of dedicating a debate to Sir Nicolas because he has shown a strong interest in what one might call the non-conformist debates that have characterised the House from time to time. He has encouraged me to raise with the House the vital philosophical questions that Governments of all persuasions find it too easy to ignore. Despite the mathematical title of the debate, my aim is a philosophical one—it will be an essay in the philosophy of mathematics—and one main objective that I hope to secure is that Sir Nicolas will indeed find it enjoyable.
	I put this matter on the agenda today because I have been troubled since the president of a teachers' union suggested a couple of months ago that mathematics might be dropped as a compulsory subject by pupils at the age of 14. Mr. Bladen of the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers was given a lengthy slot on the "Today" programme to present his views. He cited the quadratic equation as an example of the sort of irrelevant topic that pupils study. I had hoped that the Government would make a robust rebuttal, but there was no defence either of mathematics in general or the quadratic equation in particular.
	If such assertions are left unrebutted, what was an ignorant suggestion at one time can become received wisdom a very short time later and an article of educational faith a short time after that. I wish to short-circuit that process and provide a rebuttal of that union leader's suggestion. I note that he was a maths teacher, but I do not regard the desire for changes that simply make the teacher's job easier to be in the best union traditions. He was happy to teach maths to those who enjoyed it, but he wanted to stop teaching maths to those who did not. By defending the centrality of the quadratic equation to mathematical education, I hope also to submit some thoughts on what we would be missing if we allowed mathematics to be regarded as a subject of no greater worth than any other subject on the curriculum.
	When I proposed this debate, it was arranged that the Minister for School Standards would respond. I submitted a draft to his office, but I note that he has taken flight, so I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education on having stepped into the breach. I hope that the absence of the Minister for School Standards signifies nothing other than unavailability, as opposed to possible hostility to what I am about to say.
	I hope that you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I remind the House what an equation is, and then what a quadratic equation is. Of course, we all know that there is a strong appetite for equations in the House—witness the large assembly gathered in the Chamber, as well as the large number of hon. Members who seem to have mastered the mathematical material employing the calculus in the 18 volumes of background support papers for the Chancellor's recent statement on the euro—but it will come as a surprise to hon. Members who are interested in these things to hear that not everyone has an appetite for them. Indeed, it is said that Sir Stephen Hawking was told not to put even a single equation anywhere early in a book of his that sought to popularise science on the ground that one equation would immediately halve its readership. Apparently, the casual reader flicking through the book in a shop would put it back on the shelf if he or she saw the offending line of print.
	What are these equations? From an early stage in primary school, we were given problems such as "If x + 5 = 7, what is x?" You will notice, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am not making the problems too difficult at this stage. Since the time of Descartes, it has been customary to use letters from towards the end of the alphabet for such unknown quantities. Later on, at about the age of 11, we will grapple with so-called simultaneous equations, where there are two or more unknown quantities and two or more equations.
	Even at that stage, many people, whether old or young, feel bewilderment when such problems are posed, and once the going gets a bit complicated the person who does not want to jump through those hoops is liable to ask, "Why should I bother?" If the education environment is one that says to children, "Study only what interests you", then because the xs and ys look about as boring and detached from reality as anything could be, the pupil is more than pleased when someone in authority says, "If you really don't fancy getting your head around these things, you don't have to." I believe that there is an underlying tension about what we are doing in education, and that the prevailing model is that if someone finds something hard or uninteresting, they are more than welcome to drop it and to move on to something that they find much more tractable and believe, in their minority and youth, to be of much more practical and immediate relevance to their lives.
	In that sense, I contend that our educational system has become too focused on working with the current beliefs and enthusiasms of the pupil and insufficiently focused on ignorance. Since education is meant to dispel ignorance—and for all of us appreciating and overcoming our own tendency to ignorance is hard work—an educational model that moves only along the grooves of pupil preference must be deemed too soft. I contend that the soft model should be repudiated and that our model of education should explicitly countenance how important it is for pupils and students to master skills that at first glance seem to them to be strange and uncongenial. Indeed, I might put it more strongly. An idea or a book that seems uncongenial or difficult can, if its subject matter is important, engender those profound changes of attitude that education at its best can precipitate. Education is about climbing mountains, not skipping molehills.
	Why should anyone feel passionate about the xs and ys in systems of equations? One answer is this: because if one does not make the effort to see what those xs and ys conceal, one will be cut off from having any real understanding of science. My passion comes from a sense that our society eschews educational difficulty, and hence culturally directs people away from the sciences. What that means—here is the source of my passion—is that in my constituency of Hemel Hempstead, women must wait 18 weeks for a laboratory to process their cervical smear test because many more young people want to work in television than in science, so there are not enough people to work in the laboratory. We have a society that is founded on science, but educationally we provide a university system that offers far more scope for studying the media than for studying physics. I do not wish to engage in the fashionable castigation of media studies or business studies, as many excellent courses go by such names, but where a society provides a very large number of opportunities to study such subjects and a fast-diminishing set of opportunities to study engineering and the mainstream sciences, it makes sense to ask how we have arrived at such a peculiar juncture.
	To reflect on that point—and to use an analogy that Sir Nicolas would like—we can observe that a society can regress from being scientifically and technologically cultured to being backward. In the Rome of 800 AD, anyone who wanted to use metal for any purpose would have to find some left by those who lived when the empire was at its zenith. The technical citizens of ancient Rome knew which rocks contained metal ore and developed a furnace technology to liberate the metal from its elemental attendance. Eight hundred years later, such knowledge had been entirely lost.
	We live in a society that has inherited an extraordinary wealth of knowledge about the world. However, that wealth appears daunting to the pupil or student. To become a scientist appears to require a capacity not only to amass a huge amount of knowledge but to master some ideas, which, at first glance, seem difficult, confusing, remote and mentally too taxing. As David Hume observed, most people have a sufficient disposition toward idleness to want to avoid excessive labour if possible. Consequently, our science-dependent culture is not replenishing the scientific basis that is needed for its continued existence. That neglect has terrible consequences, not only in Hemel Hempstead hospital.
	How do quadratic equations relate to all that? First, they are a little more complicated than the linear and simultaneous equations that I mentioned earlier. They have only one unknown expression but they allow it to be raised to a power of 2, for example x2 = 4. Of course, x2 means that x is multiplied by itself. Another example is 3x2 + x—10 = 0. I suppose that it comes as a shock to find that solving those equations requires some effort. Even the first one—x x x = 4, what is x?—is not as simple as it appears. There are two solutions: x = 2 and x =-2. Most people in school learn a general formula to deal with more complicated problems. That is often done without understanding and the world appears to divide into sheep, who do not mind doing that sort of thing and goats, who view it as a pointless game that is less riveting than snap.
	Why should anyone try to understand quadratic equations and the principles that lie behind solving them? They underpin modern science as surely as the smelting methods of the Romans were the key to their building culture. Modern science dawns with the experiments of Galileo. To describe how bodies fall, he knew from Kepler that he had to use the precision of mathematics rather than the imprecise language of Aristotle. The equation that he used for the most fundamental laws of motion was a quadratic equation in time, s = ut + ½ ft2, in which s is distance travelled, u is the initial velocity f is the accelerating force—usually gravity—and t is time.
	To tell students that quadratic equations are beyond them, that they are about nothing and that educated people need have no inkling of what they are is to say that it is all right if they are so ill equipped to understand modern science that they cannot even comprehend its starting point. Those who tell us that we need no familiarity with quadratic equations are telling us to ignore 400 years of intellectual, scientific and technological development. When educators tell us that we should do that, I rejoin that they have a strange view of education, which I should like the Government to repudiate.
	If we forget straight lines, the second aspect of the quadratic expression is that it gives us the simplest example of a graph. All admit the utility and importance of that method of presenting information.
	If I imagine the simplest quadratic expression, x2, and I ask of it what values it takes when x assumes different values—when x is 1, x2 is 1; when x is 2, x2 is 4, and so on—I get a beautiful elementary curve: a parabola. Galileo used the properties of the parabola to analyse the motion of a falling body. He was able to do so because, long before him, Archimedes had identified some of the properties of the parabola. He knew, for instance, that it was impossible to measure exactly the long side of a unit triangle—a triangle with two sides of length 1, and the longest side, the hypotenuse. It is an extraordinary fact, however, that if such a triangle has a parabola—a curved side—it is possible to measure its area exactly. For example, when the parabola is defined by x2, when x goes from nought to six, the two straight sides and one curved side will form an area of exactly 72 units.
	The mathematical materials of modern science and engineering were laid down by the ancient Greeks, and to tell students that they need not attend to any of these ideas is not merely to deprive them of the ideas that predate Galileo, it is to provide them with an education that neglects entirely the whole post-Hellenic edifice of human scientific culture. The Greeks thought that people were divided into those who could understand at least as far as proposition 47 of book I of Euclid's "Elements". Anyone who could get beyond that was not an ass. They called that proposition the pons asinorum—the asses' bridge. One way of looking at the quadratic equation might be to say that it is the pons asinorum of modern science.
	I have two further observations on quadratic equations. First, it is powerful educational medicine to come to understand that something that can be expressed very simply can be extraordinarily difficult to solve. Much of modern culture tends the other way. People are presented with enormously difficult problems in politics or economics, for example—I have already mentioned the euro debate—and they assume that such problems have a simple and comprehensible solution. The quadratic equation can teach us to be humble.
	Secondly, I have said that to solve such problems one has to make certain moves. In schools, pupils sometimes learn those moves without much understanding of what lies behind them. This is not the place to describe those moves, although I expect that the Minister will be able to remind us of what the generalised solution to a quadratic equation is, because I am sure that his team has equipped him to do so. He probably remembers it anyway from his own schooldays; it is the sort of thing that tends to stick. I am not sure how he is responding to that idea, but I shall persist with the thought.
	It is quite extraordinary that one of the outcomes of making efforts to solve these equations is that we seem to have to expand the number system. For example, the solution of the humble-looking equation 2x2+2x+1=0, a very basic quadratic equation with no hard numbers, seems to require that there be a square root of -1. Since, when we multiply a negative by a negative, we get a positive, it is hard to see how a negative number could have a square root, but the humble quadratic equation suggests that there should be such numbers.
	Most people think they know what "number" means; but, in reality, a substantial strand of human intellectual development has involved thinking of how to overcome the limitations of the elementary idea of "number" that we started with, and this rich heritage has been truly a world effort, whether it took place in Iraq, India or China. Knowledge of these things makes people less Anglocentric than they otherwise might be.
	Most recently, this bizarre number—the square root of –1—has, since the work of de Broglie in 1923, played a key role in the equations that define quantum theory and which help us to understand our world in its microstructure. I might add to that that the structures that help us understand the other form of equation, simultaneous equations—structures called matrices—are also what are needed in the wave equations of quantum mechanics, since the work of Schrodinger, also in the mid-1920s. If we are to develop nanotechnology, for instance, it will be important that our students are at home with these ideas. Nanotechnology depends upon quantum effects.
	I have the honour to serve on the Science and Technology Committee here in the House—you will have probably guessed that by now, Madam Deputy Speaker—and one important aim of that Committee has been to ask the Government to think again about their educational strategy. Some of the concepts and skills that we ask our children and our university students to develop are regarded as "difficult." Mathematics lies in that realm, but so also do other activities such as learning foreign languages, mastering counterpoint and imagining biochemical structures in three dimensions. I submit that such activities, demanding as they do that the students make a real effort to change their perspective, are at the core of education; education as mountain climbing and not molehill jumping.
	Students and pupils are told too often that if they find ideas difficult, they can still attain high levels of educational qualification by avoiding such demanding materials. That is actually to do a disservice to those pupils. A key role for education is to help students understand, in all its richness and complexity, the world they have inherited, and perhaps it is also important that they understand the debt they owe to previous generations of many nations and cultures.
	A second key role for education in a science-based culture is to equip a significant number of people with the skills to be able to transform that culture for the better. A Government who aspire to have 50 per cent. of school leavers in higher education but who are content for most of those students to have not an inkling of the science and technology that underpins the culture is a Government who are willing to preside over cultural and educational decline, whatever the statistics look like.

Eleanor Laing: Hear, hear.

Tony McWalter: Oh dear. I would like to have support from elsewhere as well.
	Someone who thinks that the quadratic equation is an empty manipulation, devoid of any other significance, is someone who is content with leaving the many in ignorance. I believe also that he or she is also pleading for the lowering of standards. A quadratic equation is not like a bleak room, devoid of furniture, in which one is asked to squat. It is a door to a room full of the unparalleled riches of human intellectual achievement. If you do not go through that door—or if it is said that it is an uninteresting thing to do—much that passes for human wisdom will be forever denied you.
	Throughout human history, that door was locked to those of the working classes, to women and to those who come from nations that were enslaved. Now at last we have a society and culture that have made it possible for people on the largest scale to understand at a most fundamental level the culture they have inherited and the debts that they owe to their forebears. Now we have a society in which many citizens can be empowered to understand the natural world.
	Siren voices still aver that many cannot cope with quadratic equations and similar structures, and with the worlds that they unlock. It is the Government's job to resist those who would devalue the educational currency in this way. An educational curriculum that is too undemanding cheats those who could have gained understanding, but who are denied that opportunity. Sadly, those who have been so cheated do not even know what it is that they do not know. If real education can be mentally taxing and painful, that is also one of its greatest values. Those who have profited from it are grateful to those who helped them to attain it for the whole of their lives. To deny real education to the many on the dubious ground that they cannot cope with difficulty is to fail to grasp an historic opportunity for human liberation.
	Remembering the point about Stephen Hawking, perhaps one day, books that feature equations will have their circulation enhanced by that feature. Perhaps we will know that then, we have an educated citizenry.

Alan Johnson: I begin by echoing the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) on Sir Nicolas Bevan's retirement. I should also like to associate myself with remarks made by Members on both sides of the House throughout the day, and with the sentiments of the well-supported early-day motion. It is not often that a Government representative supports an early-day motion, but I do so on this occasion because it recognises Sir Nicolas's long and distinguished service. I wish him well in his retirement.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead on securing this debate. He said that he was expecting my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards to reply, and I should point out that there has been a fierce struggle among the seven Ministers in the Department for Education and Skills in that regard. In the end, my hon. Friend was thought to be far too junior. He has a good career in front of him, but he was part of the 2001 intake and is therefore far too young. So I have the honour to reply to today's debate.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead for defining what quadratic equations actually are. In fact, my Parliamentary Private Secretary provided me with one, and I shall check it with my hon. Friend afterwards to see whether my Parliamentary Private Secretary will continue to hold his post in future. I hope that I can provide my hon. Friend with a repudiation of the comments, made on the radio a couple of weeks ago, of the trade union leader to whom he referred.
	Quadratic equations allow us to analyse the relationships between variable quantities, and they are the tool for understanding variable rates of change. It is in variable rates of change that quadratic equations are seen in economics, science and engineering. Examples of the use of quadratic equations include acceleration, ballistics and financial comparisons. Most drivers would feel capable of working out whether they can overtake the car in front, but do they realise that they are solving a quadratic equation in doing so? I dare say that many do not. In fact, it is claimed that the Babylonians, in 400BC, were the first to use the notion of quadratic equations in problem solving, although at the time they had no idea what an equation was.
	In preparing for this debate, the DFES conducted a straw poll involving a 16-year-old who had just sat maths GCSE, a head of maths and an experienced chemical engineer. The 16-year-old thought that quadratic equations were logical and fairly straightforward because
	"you substitute stuff into a formula".
	He did say, however, that his opinion might have been influenced by having a good teacher. The head of maths said that quadratic equations formed an important step in students' ability to solve equations, taking them from simple—one unknown—and simultaneous—two unknowns—and paving the way for more advanced work in mechanics and complex number theory. The engineer said that he did not use quadratic equations now, but had in the past in detailed design applications. Where he works, the chemists use them to explain multiple reactions.
	The place of quadratic equations in everyday life is pretty clear, but what are pupils taught at school? The national numeracy strategy has had a significant impact on raising the standards of mathematics in primary schools. Last year's key stage 2 results showed that 73 per cent. of pupils achieved the expected level for their age in mathematics, which is a 14 per cent. increase since 1998. We want to build on that impressive record, which is why we have launched "Excellence and Enjoyment—A Strategy for Primary Schools". Our vision for primary education is of excellence and enjoyment at the heart of a broad and rich curriculum.
	The key stage 3 national strategy for 11 to 14-year-olds provides a comprehensive professional development programme for teachers, new materials and support from expert local consultants. The maths teaching framework emphasises the development of algebraic reasoning. It encourages pupils to develop an understanding of how algebra is a way of generalising from arithmetic, and to represent problems and solutions in a variety of forms.
	Simple linear equations are taught from key stage 3. In 2002, key stage 3 results stand at their highest ever, with 67 per cent. of pupils achieving level 5 plus in the key stage 3 tests for both maths and science. Quadratic equations, with their more complex parabolic curves, are taught from late key stage 3 or key stage 4. Factorisation of algebra is a difficult concept to understand and students need plenty of practice. Teaching students to think logically and to analyse different problems is a very important skill, which is not only transferable to other areas of the curriculum but can be used beyond student life. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) from a sedentary position reminds us of that as I speak.
	Pupils taking the intermediate tier GCSE mathematics study algebraic manipulation, including the solving of quadratic equations. They are covered in greater depth by pupils following the higher tier GCSE course and developed further for those going on to study maths on A and AS-level courses. It is at that level that students are taught the concepts that they will need, should they choose to do degrees in maths, sciences, engineering or economics.
	There is a shortage of people nationally who can construct these mathematical models and who understand them enough to use them. The fact that an inquiry is taking place into post-14 mathematics is a testament to the importance of the subject. The aims of the post-14 inquiry, announced in July 2002, are to
	"make recommendations on changes to the curriculum, qualifications and pedagogy for those aged 14 and over in schools, college and higher education institutions to enable those students to acquire mathematical knowledge and skills necessary to meet the requirements of employers and of further and higher education".
	Professor Adrian Smith, the inquiry chairman, is due to report his findings this autumn.
	The use of information and communications technology in schools and in teaching and demonstrating mathematics models is helping the understanding of all learners. With ICT becoming a more integral part of classroom teaching, students can visualise and problem-solve in more creative ways. Those, too, are lifelong skills that can be applied in daily life, not just as a student. ICT gives students confidence in their abilities and increases their eagerness to learn. Using graphical calculators to learn about quadratic functions, for example, helps pupils learn in a more innovative environment.
	Several interesting initiatives support teachers in making maths lessons more challenging and exciting. I should like briefly to describe them. Census at school can be used in a number of curriculum subjects, particularly maths. Pupils fill out a questionnaire, see how a census works and are able to compare their school's results with those of other schools in the UK and elsewhere. That is particularly helpful for key stage 3 pupils encountering data and learning how to handle them.
	The UK mathematics trust works with secondary school teachers and pupils to promote mathematics. It encourages all secondary schools to take part in competitions and events, including the team maths challenge. The trust also identifies and trains students for the international mathematics olympiad.
	The work of the Cambridge university-based millennium maths project allows teachers and students to tap into resources over the internet. Students can ask university undergraduates for help with mathematical problems. The project also offers tailored and continuous professional development for teachers.
	An increasing use of information and communications technology and innovative ways of teaching are both positive steps for the subject, as is the rise in the number of mathematics teachers.
	The intake to initial teacher training courses in mathematics rose to 1,670 in 2002–03, an increase of 8 per cent., and an overall increase of 28.5 per cent. since 1999–2000. The number of graduates applying to train as teachers of mathematics on post-graduate certificates in education courses in 2003–04 was 35 per cent. higher than for the same period last year. In a recent Ofsted report, it was noted that today's newly qualified teachers are the best trained ever. We need not only to continue to increase the number of teachers, but to support mathematics subject specialism. We want teachers to maintain their enthusiasm for maths and to develop their expertise throughout their careers.
	In March, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills announced that Adrian Smith would advise on options and costs for a national centre for excellence in mathematics later this year. The new centre should harness all the good work already under way and enable more teachers to tap into the resources and support that they need.
	In conclusion, the teaching of quadratic equations, and of the mathematics curriculum overall, is key to a future work force that can develop and use mathematical models in daily life. As research in a book of quotations reveals, Napoleon said:
	"The advancement and perfection of mathematics are intimately connected with the prosperity of the state."
	We recognise the importance of mathematics at all stages of education, and we are committed to ensuring that all young people have the opportunity to acquire the skills that they need—as citizens, and as the mathematicians, scientists and engineers of the future.
	Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead for securing this debate, and for making such an interesting and entertaining contribution.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Four o'clock.